Deep Thoughts

[Metar]

We humans have trouble understanding the meaning of "nothing". There must be something. The beginning of the universe? Well, there must have been something then in order for there to be something now. Something can't come from nothing. So I simply can't imagine there being nothing after you die. There's something now, where does it go? We've got the chemistry part down pretty well, but what about the stuff inside your brain? Your awareness and knowledge and all that. I'll be determined to stay alive while I die to find out what happens.

It's not a very comforting idea, but I quite accept that all these memories will disappear the moment I die. And, under certain medical conditions, even earlier.

Memories, sentience, consciousness and the thinking-process as a whole are just biochemical processes. Loads of neurons releasing small charges of electricity at each other, somehow creating a reaction that allows us to think. Because each connection between a neuron and it's connections is so finely-tuned and unique for each bond, we can think the way we do - and once we die, these connections quickly change as the neurons die. And then these memories are gone.

 

[nk4e]

Metar, isn't that every neuron is different in a way?

 

[Metar]

Considering none of them connect to exactly the same other neurons, that has to be true.

But yes - each neuron has it's own "weights" for each synapse: different thresholds and sensitivities. Every being with a brain has unique neurons, and their synapses change as we use them, and creates new connections as we learn and remember. These connections fade as we forget, too.

 

[Simplex 4100U]

We humans have trouble understanding the meaning of "nothing". There must be something. The beginning of the universe? Well, there must have been something then in order for there to be something now. Something can't come from nothing. So I simply can't imagine there being nothing after you die. There's something now, where does it go? We've got the chemistry part down pretty well, but what about the stuff inside your brain? Your awareness and knowledge and all that. I'll be determined to stay alive while I die to find out what happens.

on the idea of "nothing", i believe that nothing has no existence, but that there is always something, but there is an emptiness or absence of that something.if you say you have nothing, then you would not exist, or have the ability to say "I have nothing.", so therefore, the meaning of nothing, the existence of nothing, and the very word itself, has no real purpose in this world. the universe started as something, fused something else, and made a whole coagulated mess of planets and solar systems(which proves that 1+1=2 is only a theory. in this case, 1+1=1.) that which we now live in.

also, in magic and alchemy, it is said that when done right, you can create anything from nothing(total BS). what it should really say is that you can make anything from something of little to no value whatsoever. like, let's say, transform ashes into a Nintendo Wii(of course, not thinking realistically, but you catch my drift, i hope), or transform a copper nugget into $2K worth of pennies(slightly more realistic, but that'd be more of whatever metal they use for pennies than just copper... they're only copper plated, so it'd be more like $2 Million instead.).

in other words, nothing is what it is: nothing. it has no existence, therefore, i believe the idea of nothing should cease to exist, and any book with the word in it, should be wiped clear of the word.



yeah, deep s**t there... it's 12:30 here and i'm about 75% asleep, and just typing whatever pops into my mind(thanks Keef), and pretty much just babbling/ranting. sorry for wasti ng anyone's bandwidth...

 

[Danoff]

in other words, nothing is what it is: nothing. it has no existence, therefore, i believe the idea of nothing should cease to exist, and any book with the word in it, should be wiped clear of the word.

Also we should get rid of the word "bad". We can just call things "ungood".

 

[Sureboss]

Considering none of them connect to exactly the same other neurons, that has to be true.

But yes - each neuron has it's own "weights" for each synapse: different thresholds and sensitivities. Every being with a brain has unique neurons, and their synapses change as we use them, and creates new connections as we learn and remember. These connections fade as we forget, too.

I asked TM about Neurons, do they re-grow/regenerate at all? He didn't seem to know (Shocking, I know!). Is it dependant on our age, physical state? Being cells, surely they don't just live or die (1 or 0 in binary, if you will)?

 

[Metar]

I don't know much about neuron development - I only study the way they transfer information, within the rather limited scope of a 12th-grade paper focused on virtual neurons. But from what I read, they cease to "grow" at a rather early age, and from that time onwards, all learning is done by creating more connections between the neurons rather than by creating a whole new neuron. Apparently, we are born with about twice as many neurons as we have left by the time we reach puberty - because many of them are "excess" neurons that aren't really required.

 

[Sureboss]

Puberty gets rid of many cells

Hmm, I think the april fool smillies make that look a bit weird.

 

[Metar]

As Jackington said in the appropriate thread, it makes everything look sexually suggestive.

 

[Touring Mars]

On reading this article about the Hubble Space Telescope, I was compelled to leave a comment but alas cannot because the comments section is now closed... but this is what I was going to comment on:

Scientists, by definition, do not opt for the cosy option but seek to understand the world as it really is and we all have cause to thank them for their efforts in putting together the standard Big Bang model to help us better understand how the universe came to be.

However, we are still no closer to understanding "why".

I would argue that we are closer to understanding "why" simply because we now know that one possible answer to the question of "why do we exist" is that there may well be no reason at all.

The very question "Why do we exist?" implies that there is a reason or purpose there to be found, but what if there just isn't?

 

[Danoff]

The very question "Why do we exist?" implies that there is a reason or purpose there to be found, but what if there just isn't?

I've long held the suspicion that the final answer will be something to the effect of "mathematics requires it to be this way". That's a fairly counter intuitive thing for many people, but I think eventually it is quit possible that there will be a proof that assumes you start with nothing, and proves our reality comes from that.

...and if that were the answer, then science really does help answer the question "why".

 

[Touring Mars]

A very Hawking-esque way of thinking!

It depends how you phrase it, because I would say that a mathematical proof would actually not address the question "why" in a way that many people would find satisfactory, let alone meaningful...

What I mean by that is, there is every reason to suspect that if there is indeed a "reason" or "purpose" to existence, then that reason may not be understandable or make any sense to us as humans - in other words, although a mathematical solution may explain "how", it still doesn't explain "why" as such.

I personally think that the "how" question is very nearly already answered, but that the closer we get to a final theory on how the universe came to be the way it is, the more you get people like the chap who wrote the article I quoted saying "yes, but we want to know 'why'...".

It is perhaps a consequence of our human nature that we automatically assume that everything that has a "how" - including our own existence - also has a "why", when in reality it very likely may not...

 

[Danoff]

I saw a girl walking in to work from the parking lot today who's jeans were faded on the back. They had enormous white faded portions right on both ass cheeks and another disconnected faded blotch on the legs.

I've seen these jeans before, and the obvious intent is to get me to look at her butt. But I couldn't help thinking about how much she looked like a baboon. I don't mean that in the derogatory sense. I mean I think she was literally acting like the primate she is. And I was too - since it caught my eye.

 

[Anderton Prime]

We call it a "safe" because it keeps our money...safe.
They're called "brownies" because they're...brown.
It's a fly because it...flies.
They messed up on "cookies" though; should have called them "bakies."

Also anyone ever wonder at the term "News?" Taken literally, it is the plural form of the word "new." So when you watch/read/listen to "The News" you're receiving all the "new" events that have occurred. And for that matter, why not call history "The Olds?"

 

[cpp214]

Okay, please forgive me if this is an idiotic question, but it's something that I have often wondered and never really fully understood. There are some very intelligent people here on this forum who are much more well-versed in physics than I am, so hopefully, some of you may see my question and be able to help me "connect the dots" so to speak.

Specifically, I have often wondered what is outside the visible/physical universe? We pretty much know that the universe has been expanding since it's emergence some--14 Billion years ago?. At one point, a few milliseconds after the big bang, the universe was approximately the size of the tip of an ink pen and has been expanding ever since, but what is it expanding against? I am vaguely familiar with the concept of dark matter and if I am not mistaken, the universe if viewed from outside (theoretically) is elliptically-shaped? But this doesn't help me understand what surrounds the universe. I guess the universe is surrounded--quite literally--by nothing.

Just an odd thought that I have found compelling since I was a teenager...

 

[Touring Mars]

Okay, please forgive me if this is an idiotic question, but it's something that I have often wondered and never really fully understood. There are some very intelligent people here on this forum who are much more well-versed in physics than I am, so hopefully, some of you may see my question and be able to help me "connect the dots" so to speak.

Specifically, I have often wondered what is outside the visible/physical universe? We pretty much know that the universe has been expanding since it's emergence some--14 Billion years ago?. At one point, a few milliseconds after the big bang, the universe was approximately the size of the tip of an ink pen and has been expanding ever since, but what is it expanding against? I am vaguely familiar with the concept of dark matter and if I am not mistaken, the universe if viewed from outside (theoretically) is elliptically-shaped? But this doesn't help me understand what surrounds the universe. I guess the universe is surrounded--quite literally--by nothing.

Just an odd thought that I have found compelling since I was a teenager...

It's not an idiotic question at all 👍 I'll try to answer in so much as I understand the question, but apologies in advance if it doesn't make alot of sense!

The portion of the universe that is visible to us is determined by the speed of light (which is constant in the vacuum of space and is also finite) and by the fact that the universe is a finite age (about 14 billion years old). We know the latter from direct observation of the movement of galaxies and by various other means. The overall result is that there is a finite limit to what is physically visible to us, not simply because objects become too dim to see, but because there are objects so distant that the light from them couldn't have reached us in the time available - i.e. an object 20 billion light years away cannot possibly be seen by us in a 14 billion year old universe. In other words, there is a "horizon" - about 14 billion light years away - that we cannot see beyond... but this doesn't mean there is 'nothing' beyond it.

The large scale structure of the universe reveals something interesting - it generally looks the same (i.e. is largely homogenous) when viewed in any direction. Also, there is no perceptible "centre" to the universe, although it looks like we are right in the centre - but although it might look to us like we are seeing the very "edge" of the universe, we are infact only observing a "horizon" in time. So, although it looks to us that the Earth is right at the centre of the entire universe (which is highly unlikely given that we are not even near the centre of our own galaxy!), it is far more likely that the universe would infact look like that from anywhere. The latter is almost certainly true, and although it is very difficult to physically test right now, this hypothesis is strongly consistent with many observable facts.

So the question "what is the universe expanding into?" takes on a different complexion when you realise that the "visible edge" of the universe is not an edge at all, but simply a horizon. Think about this... we can see galaxies that are more than 20 billion light years away from each other (i.e. two galaxies 10 billion light years away from us, but in exactly opposite directions), but we cannot see any galaxies 20 billion light years from ourselves, for the reason stated above. That means that those two galaxies, subject to the same laws of nature as we are (i.e. the speed of light and the finite age of the universe), almost certianly won't be able to see each other. This means that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that we are not in exactly the same state i.e. there is almost certainly objects that exist but are too far away from us to see. It also means that there is no reason to believe that the universe is not infact infinite in size, and hence the idea that it is expanding "into" anything is redundant. The answer could just as easily be "more space" as "nothing". The idea that space can be infinite and expanding is perhaps slightly bizarre, but then again, so is the idea that Earth was the site of the Big Bang.

 

[cpp214]

It's not an idiotic question at all 👍 I'll try to answer in so much as I understand the question, but apologies in advance if it doesn't make alot of sense!

The portion of the universe that is visible to us is determined by the speed of light (which is constant in the vacuum of space and is also finite) and by the fact that the universe is a finite age (about 14 billion years old). We know the latter from direct observation of the movement of galaxies and by various other means. The overall result is that there is a finite limit to what is physically visible to us, not simply because objects become too dim to see, but because there are objects so distant that the light from them couldn't have reached us in the time available - i.e. an object 20 billion light years away cannot possibly be seen by us in a 14 billion year old universe. In other words, there is a "horizon" - about 14 billion light years away - that we cannot see beyond... but this doesn't mean there is 'nothing' beyond it.

The large scale structure of the universe reveals something interesting - it generally looks the same (i.e. is largely homogenous) when viewed in any direction. Also, there is no perceptible "centre" to the universe, although it looks like we are right in the centre - but although it might look to us like we are seeing the very "edge" of the universe, we are infact only observing a "horizon" in time. So, although it looks to us that the Earth is right at the centre of the entire universe (which is highly unlikely given that we are not even near the centre of our own galaxy!), it is far more likely that the universe would infact look like that from anywhere. The latter is almost certainly true, and although it is very difficult to physically test right now, this hypothesis is strongly consistent with many observable facts.

So the question "what is the universe expanding into?" takes on a different complexion when you realise that the "visible edge" of the universe is not an edge at all, but simply a horizon. Think about this... we can see galaxies that are more than 20 billion light years away from each other (i.e. two galaxies 10 billion light years away from us, but in exactly opposite directions), but we cannot see any galaxies 20 billion light years from ourselves, for the reason stated above. That means that those two galaxies, subject to the same laws of nature as we are (i.e. the speed of light and the finite age of the universe), almost certianly won't be able to see each other. This means that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that we are not in exactly the same state i.e. there is almost certainly objects that exist but are too far away from us to see. It also means that there is no reason to believe that the universe is not infact infinite in size, and hence the idea that it is expanding "into" anything is redundant. The answer could just as easily be "more space" as "nothing".

Thanks very much for your reply TM

I think it helped me understand things a little better, and in fact it's quite thrilling to think that the Universe may be infinite in size.

 

[Soundtrack]

Thinking loud so sorry if this doesn’t make any sense, but what is to be considered the source of light here? (the one that gives us a 14 billion years horizon capacity)

 

[Touring Mars]

All galaxies emit visible light, but since light has a finite speed (i.e. it takes time to cover a given distance), it takes time for the light emitted by one object to reach another. Over small distances, that time interval is so small that it is practically undetectable. But in the case of galaxies, they are physically so distant, it takes light (traveling at 300,000 km per second) great periods of time to reach us, depending on how far away they are. The closest spiral galaxy to our own is so far away that it takes 2.5 million years for light to reach us from there. The most distant galaxies are so far away that it takes light billions of years to reach us from them. Because they are so distant, and so much time has passed since the light actually left the object, we actually see distant things not as they are today, but as they were in the past - the further away they are (physically), the further back in time we are looking. In the case of the most distant objects, we are actually seeing them as they were just a few hundred million years after the birth of the Universe itself. Before this point, there was no stars or galaxies, and nothing that emitted light, therefore there is literally nothing to see beyond a certain distance, hence the horizon.

 

[Soundtrack]

I think I get the picture. My understanding was that the universe was expanding but I’m guessing that this process is very slow compared to light-speed. So, in time, those opposed galaxies might well end up “seeing”(an old respective image off) each other. Also, if I get this correctly, wouldn’t our visual perception of the universe (our horizon) grow by 300,000 km every second? Couldn’t we at some point cross new light emitters? Suddenly the picture gets all blurred...

 

[Touring Mars]

It does start to get somewhat complicated, not least because the universe is expanding and at a considerable rate (and perhaps even accelerating). What we do know is that the more distant an object is, the faster it is moving away from us. So not only do we see very distant objects as they were when they were very young, we also see them where they were when they we very young, and hence they are now much further away. So an object that looks 10 billion light years away is actually not 10 billion light years away.

It is true to say that the cosmic horizon will expand as time passes - 10 billion years from now, the horizon will be 23 billion light years away in any direction (rather than 13 billion as it is roughly now), and hence the volume of visible Universe will be more than 5 times greater than it is now But will that volume contain more or less matter? I don't know, because in 10 billion years, the universe may have expanded so much, that the actual amount of matter visible per unit area might have decreased substantially...

Of course, in 10 billion years time, the Sun and Earth will no longer exist, and our galaxy will have merged with our giant neighbour, Andromeda, and I guess the Universe will look very different anyway!

 

[Blake]

Except to the galaxies that are 10 billion light years away.

 

[Anderton Prime]

All galaxies emit visible light, but since light has a finite speed (i.e. it takes time to cover a given distance), it takes time for the light emitted by one object to reach another. Over small distances, that time interval is so small that it is practically undetectable. But in the case of galaxies, they are physically so distant, it takes light (traveling at 300,000 km per second) great periods of time to reach us, depending on how far away they are. The closest spiral galaxy to our own is so far away that it takes 2.5 million years for light to reach us from there. The most distant galaxies are so far away that it takes light billions of years to reach us from them. Because they are so distant, and so much time has passed since the light actually left the object, we actually see distant things not as they are today, but as they were in the past - the further away they are (physically), the further back in time we are looking. In the case of the most distant objects, we are actually seeing them as they were just a few hundred million years after the birth of the Universe itself. Before this point, there was no stars or galaxies, and nothing that emitted light, therefore there is literally nothing to see beyond a certain distance, hence the horizon.

With my limited mathematical skills I deduce the distance of this galaxy from our own to be:

2.3652e+19 (to the 19th exponent) kilometers away from us,

or 2.3652e+22 meters away.

 

[Danoff]

The other day I got to thinking about all the different types of authentic food that are available to us in LA. We can get authentic Japanese, Thai, Mexican, Lebanese, Persian, Ethiopian, Greek, German, Italian, French, etc. etc. etc.

...I'm sure that these authentic restaurants do a faithful job of recreating what is, in many cases, their home country's cuisine. I wouldn't know, of course, because I haven't been to most of those countries. But people who have - or are from there - often say that the food is quite faithful.

In my experience, the bastardized version of the cuisine is often better than the authentic version. The example I will give (and I have others) is Tex-Mex. I'm not a big fan of authentic Mexican food - and I've had quite a bit. I am, however, a big fan of Texasified Mexican food. Now that I live in LA, of course, I can get authentic Mexican food any time I want - because LA imports the best authentic food from just about everywhere. What we don't import here in LA is bastardized food - so I can't get my Tex-Mex. That got me thinking...

Maybe if I were to visit, say, Italy. I shouldn't spend all my time sampling authentic Italian cuisine - which I'm sure I could get at home. Maybe I should sample the Italian version of German food. Or their version of Spanish food - but I also wonder how prevalent that sort of thing is in other countries.

The US doesn't have much (there is a little) that is our own in the way of cuisine. What we do have are Americanized version of lots of things. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not. But when you come to the US, one of the things to try would be our bastardization of Mexican food. If other nations do this too, it could, theoretically, represent some of the best cuisine available in that country - especially if you exclude what was available back home.

Maybe someday I'll visit Japan and people will look at me funny when I go into a French restaurant.

 

[Metar]

Well, having been to Italy several times, they actually do make the best Pizzas, Pastas and Ice Creams. Over at a friend's place in Spoleto, the local Pizza guy down the road makes some fantastic stuff with a real stone oven, and the ice-cream store slightly up the (ancient) road makes ice-cream that drags out whole families at midnight.

And Germany's best foods - sausages mostly - are good in Germany, too; "German-adapted" foreign food is often not seasoned enough.

Good and tasty "authentic" foods in the "wrong" places depend on the immigration, I would think. Berlin, for example, has excellent Shawarma (Döner Kebab), owing to the large Lebanese and Turkish population. Falafel, pretty much Israel's most popular food, is a middle-eastern meal - but Berlin's "Dada Falafel", I swear, make some of the best I've ever had. Good Turkish Böreks are everywhere.


As for Japan, I've two friends who shocked enough with true Japanese food (beyond Sushi and Noodles) that they simply stuck to McDonalds.

 

[nk4e]

I always thought that people have cooking techniques for the same dish. It may be the same though to you it is different.

 

[Omnis]

The other day I got to thinking about all the different types of authentic food that are available to us in LA. We can get authentic Japanese, Thai, Mexican, Lebanese, Persian, Ethiopian, Greek, German, Italian, French, etc. etc. etc.

...I'm sure that these authentic restaurants do a faithful job of recreating what is, in many cases, their home country's cuisine. I wouldn't know, of course, because I haven't been to most of those countries. But people who have - or are from there - often say that the food is quite faithful.

In my experience, the bastardized version of the cuisine is often better than the authentic version. The example I will give (and I have others) is Tex-Mex. I'm not a big fan of authentic Mexican food - and I've had quite a bit. I am, however, a big fan of Texasified Mexican food. Now that I live in LA, of course, I can get authentic Mexican food any time I want - because LA imports the best authentic food from just about everywhere. What we don't import here in LA is bastardized food - so I can't get my Tex-Mex. That got me thinking...

Maybe if I were to visit, say, Italy. I shouldn't spend all my time sampling authentic Italian cuisine - which I'm sure I could get at home. Maybe I should sample the Italian version of German food. Or their version of Spanish food - but I also wonder how prevalent that sort of thing is in other countries.

The US doesn't have much (there is a little) that is our own in the way of cuisine. What we do have are Americanized version of lots of things. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not. But when you come to the US, one of the things to try would be our bastardization of Mexican food. If other nations do this too, it could, theoretically, represent some of the best cuisine available in that country - especially if you exclude what was available back home.

Maybe someday I'll visit Japan and people will look at me funny when I go into a French restaurant.

Belgium also had fantastic food from all over the place. The greek food in particular was amazing. They also had a wing truck at the farmer's market which was awesome. Best chicken wings I've ever had.

 

[Lucas]

Specifically, I have often wondered what is outside the visible/physical universe? We pretty much know that the universe has been expanding since it's emergence some--14 Billion years ago?. At one point, a few milliseconds after the big bang, the universe was approximately the size of the tip of an ink pen and has been expanding ever since, but what is it expanding against?

Could it be more than coincidence that I was thinking about this a few minutes ago, before even reading your post?

 

[Touring Mars]

Except to the galaxies that are 10 billion light years away.

Haha, indeed... that brings up a rather interesting (fascinating/weird/scary?) thought, which is this - imagine a super-advanced technological society inhabits a planet near a star in the Andromeda (M31) galaxy, 2.52 million light years from Earth. They have long been able to detect and observe civilisations on other planets, and Earth happens to be one such (rare) example in their neighbouring galaxy, of which they can get particularly good views (especially on a clear night!). But their telescopes are amazingly powerful, and their spying/reconnaissance skills are so advanced that they can effectively "watch" us going about our daily lives, as if browsing a real-time version of Google Earth. It is such high resolution that they can track individuals and you happen to be one of their favourite subjects and even have something of a cult following there... (OK, now we're stretching the imagination a tad, but bear with me!) - but here's the kicker. You don't have a cult following there right now, but in 2.52 million years from now, when they are able to see you "live". In other words, what we do now could (in theory anyway) be watched by alien observers for (again, in theory anyway) billions of years to come. What's more, they aren't merely seeing a "playback", an echo, or a facsimilie of you, but would actually be watching you "as live", albeit with a tremendous delay. So, although the chances that someone is watching you right now are incredibly low, the chances will get higher and higher as time progresses.

 

[Metar]

Sounds suspiciously like that reconnaissence base in the Hitchhiker's Guide, minus the delay bit.


Also, considering the movements of the two galaxies towards each other, wouldn't the Doppler shift cause their favourite The Blake Show (Season 20: Now with an added 2 hours of commute!) to appear in odd colours?