I Know You Exist, But I Dont Think You Are Real. a thought trail i found myself lost in

[szupie 0]

qwijibow, I think that would seem possible. I believe in something close to that too, and I have somethings that could add to make your theory better. But, you may not think the same way I do, so what I say may not affect what you believe in, but maybe affect how someone else thinks of your theory.If this superbeing is imagining us, it could imagine us into a world with many boundaries, rules and even destiny. What it thinks, we do. Even though it is controlling all our thoughts, we are not aware of it, because the superbeing doesn't want us to know it, so it imagines that we don't know. Then, we would all be puppets of its imaginary world, destined to whatever the being thinks. When the being imagines us in a story and makes a mistake, it could take us back in time, erase our memories, and start over again. We will think that we have power to change things, but it is the being that controls everything we do.

[qwijibow 0]

coooooolwhenever i try to explain somthing like this, everyone usually shoots be down, *proviing* me wrong with things like lack of knoledge, or lack of technology.but what i fail to comunicate, is just because we dont know exactly how the brain works, doesnt mean that there is a magical element to it.to me, the whole universe is a calculator.when i play snooker, i am posing the universe a question... the balls have momentum, and rotational evergy, friction, balls bouncing of the sides follow completely different, and much more complicated physics than light bouncing off a mirror.after the balls have finished bouncing, the universe has performed my calculation (taking into acound chaotic systems like air currents, static charges on the balls sliding on the mat)snooker simulations today cannot take into account for these chaotic systems.so they only appoximate with the simple conservation of energy laws, and friction.If i asked that same question, with chaotic sytems in identicle states... the universe would caluclate the same answer in the output shown by the new ball positions.When i put an apple next to anouther apple, the universe does the maths and shows 2 apples.when the universe calculates pool for me, it takes many more inputs, these so called chaotic inputs.What is chaos... in its most simple explanation...how long is a piece off string ?we will never know because to know, we would need a device capable to hole an almost infinite number of decimal places.and a calculater able to to maths with such hugely accurate numbers.we dont have one so we approximate.the approximations put incertainty's into our calculations..this is why clocks ar never perfectly accurate, why wether forcasts are wrong, and short into the future.The universe is such a calculator.to 100% predict future, we would need a calulateor as good as the universe, or better.and from my first post.... the virtual machine always has to be smaller that the machine it runs in.but just because we dont have calculators big enough to do the maths, DOESNT MEAN that the maths doesnt have an answer.which is my whole point with brains. just because we are incapable of [redicting them, doesnt mean they are not predictable to something with a better calculator.wow, inspiration just struck...is your nose self aware ? nois your blood in your brain self aware ? nois the water your brains is mostly made up of self aware.. no.but somthing in your brain is self aware, therefore i am considered self aware.and we are all just small self aware parts of the universe.is the universe self aware.like a voice in a head we dont have much controll over the universe, but uif a large lump of it comes anywhere neer us, ill bet we make a pretty huge dent in it with all our nukes.anywhere... earlyer, i was working towards a point with the snooker thing..like a moving ball on a snooker table is a mathematical problem for the universe to calculate, our brains are also chaotic mathmeatical problems that the universe is working on.

[mitchellmckain 0]

Far be it from me to ever try proving anything. The point is that I am taking an interest in things you have said because there are parts where your philosophical interests intersect mine. My interest is in the nature of existence, the nature of living things, of consciousness and the implications of modern physics, and I believe that your statements have bearing on these topics. Thus an opportunity for dialog exists. An in this dialog we both have the chance to futher elaborate upon our ideas.I don't know what you mean by magical, but let me guess. I suppose you are saying that there are no non-physical factors. Well besides showing that there are events which have no physical cause, I do not believe that there can ever be any scientific proof for or against non-physical involvement. I think this is a tautology because the limits of what is physical and the the limits of science are the same thing. I also believe, in agreement many famous physicist, like Eddington, that the idea that, what science describes is the sum total of reality, is absurd. There is no reason to believe that mathmatics should necessarily be able to describe everything and every reason to believe that it cannot.An impartial approach should consider what is the most consistent with the totality of human experience, instead of refusing to consider any human experience that does not support a given belief. Your image of the world as a calculator or a game of snooker is appropriate to nineteenth century physics and the antiquated insistence that everthing must have a "logical" explanation.Your supposition that chaotic systems in identical states would have identical result fails to take into account quantum mechanics. Because this assumption absolutely does not work for quantum states. Systems in identical quantums states do not have identical results. This is precisely the consequence of the proof that hidden variables do not exist. Chaotic systems are important because of the result proven by Ilya Prigogine that a such systems will only have the same results if they are identical to an infinite degree of precision, which means that quantum fluctuations are significant in these systems. The consequence is that identical chaotic systems do not have the same result. Because of quantum physics I am afraid the inadequacy of today's computers has nothing to do with computing power but with the fact that unlike reality everything in today's computers are determined by previously existing variables. And even if we had computers that overcame this limitation, they could only simulate a brain with the same basic nature (for I do agree that the medium is irrelevent and only process matters) but that they still could not predict a brain because the results would be completely unique and different in every case.Now just in case christians would like to use this for their claims, the fact is that these basic facts apply to all chaotic systems including neurons and hurricanes. In fact I seriously doubt that you or anyone can define the term "self aware" in a non-anthropomorphic fashion as a concrete physical/mathematical process that would include humans and yet exclude neurons or hurricanes. Nose, blood and water content are not organisms but only parts, and they do not have the basic self organizing principles that living things do. However a skin cell in the nose and a blood cell are organisms, and they do absorb energy and materials from their environment to maintain their own dynamic structure. I think that the diffence between them and a human being is quantitative not qualitative. In other words, I think they are self aware but millions of times less so so than the human being, by concrete physical measurements of the speed and volume of information involved.These are (theoretical) scientific results. The philosophical question that remains is whether the events in chaotic systems like the human brain, which have no physical cause, have some kind of non-physical involvement. Look, you can believe that we are all the imaginations of a coma patient (or whatever) if you desire, just as chritians can believe in their judgemental God and/or souls or whatever. You can also try using science like a hammer to prove that your point of view is the better one, just as they do. Maybe you are right. Maybe they are. I cannot prove a thing, but I think both are wrong.

[qwijibow 0]

There is no reason to believe that mathmatics should necessarily be able to describe everything and every reason to believe that it cannot.

Quite possably true. What i meant about nothing magical happening, is that everything in the brain is limited to (the mostly un-known) laws of physics. (just because we dont know them doesnt mean they dont exist)

What if we sent the whole of the universe, (all infinite dimensions and alternate reality's if they truely exist) back in time by 1000 years.
nobody goes back in time, the past is not altered in any way.
everything known, and unknown is put into an identicle state 100 years ago.
not just things like people and plannts, but every photon, every electron, and all energy.

then you let the universe play out aain for a thousand years.

would the universe play out exactly what it played out the first time ???

chaos theory does not come into play here, because all chaotic sytems are put into a truely identicle state.

the question here is with quantum physics i think, and the aparent nature of the aparent *random* things it does.

IF the universe plays out exactly the same 1000 years the second time around, then i would say that nothing magical is happening. The universe has a predictable future state (although you need a calculattor the size and ideticle state of the universe to calculate it)

lol, complicated definition of nothing magical.

Your supposition that chaotic systems in identical states would have identical result fails to take into account quantum mechanics. Because this assumption absolutely does not work for quantum states. Systems in identical quantums states do not have identical results. This is precisely the consequence of the proof that hidden variables do not exist. Chaotic systems are important because of the result proven by Ilya Prigogine that a such systems will only have the same results if they are identical to an infinite degree of precision, which means that quantum fluctuations are significant in these systems. The consequence is that identical chaotic systems do not have the same result.

i agree totally.
but, when we observe quantum randomnes, we are not truely putting things into identicle states. there may be partcles in the universe, smaller than quarks (lets call them quantors) and these insanely tiny and unknown things may have a huge impact on quantum physics... so currently, scientists are wattcing quantim physics by putting electrons into identcle states, and watching the random output... but they are failing to put the quantors into identicle states.

in the universe, there are two theorys i think.
Quantum physics, and relativity.
scientist are trying to unify them with things like Membrane theory,or super strings, but failing.

relativity seems to work quite nicely with human maths, 2*2=4.
maybe the quantum world has a cpompletely alien set of maths, which our tiny minds cannot cope with becase we live in a relative world of 1+1=2.

you may well be right, and probably have modern science on your side.. but i have to make th point, just because we cannot possably uniderstand quantum maths, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

in every stagein human science, we have been so confident in what we believe.
the word "attom" means indivisible. it is clearly not.

disease was caused by too much blood, we blieved this to such a degree our doctors would bleed the patients.

headaches are the works of demons, drilling holes in your skull would make them go away.

the world was flat.

the universe revolved around the earth. this conslusion came about because you could see the stars moving in circular movement in the sky.

new technology proved all the points above.

i think we are cheating by simply dismissing quantum activities as random.
maybe in the future, or maybe not, we may have better technology to see iside the the quantum world, like telescopes into space. and prove what we currently think about the latest unknown mysterious world, is totally wrong.

before we had instruments to look into the attomic world, fire was an element. as was water, and dirt and air.

[mitchellmckain 0]

there may be partcles in the universe, smaller than quarks (lets call them quantors) and these insanely tiny and unknown things may have a huge impact on quantum physics... so currently, scientists are wattcing quantim physics by putting electrons into identcle states, and watching the random output... but they are failing to put the quantors into identicle states.

You do not seem to understand the consequences of Bell's disproof of hidden variables so here are some web sites to look at. By proposing quantors you are proposing a hidden variable theory. A cherished hope of many a mechanistic determinist.

http://www.answers.com/topic/bell-s-theorem
http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

From these you may notice that there is a way to rescue hidden variables. You can explain the correlation found in these experiment with hidden variables if they are non-local. So you defininitely cannot find answers in mysterious smaller particles unless they travel faster than light. Your quantors would have to instaneously connect separated events. But it is well known that such a connection exceeding the speed of light would would violate traditional causality where cause preceeds effect because of the relativity of simultaneity. In other words all the precious assumptions made by the mechanistic determism of traditional causality (or reality) and reductionism (or locality) are not compatable with the result's of Bell's experiments. One of the assumptions must be sacrificed, but the result is the same. Mechanistic determinism comes tumbling down.

So you have to swallow one of these.
There are physical events with no physical cause.
There is a nonlocal aspect of reality connecting separated events.

I think these two possibilities are equivalent, because I don't think the techniques of science will ever be able to evaluate a non-local aspect of reality. You can believe such things exist but I don't think you will ever be able to put them on any sounder basis than the Christian soul. I do believe they exist because I do believe there is an aspect of reality which is non local and not accessible to the sciences. You can call it quantors and I can call it spirit but both of us are reaching for meaning and cause behind the random events of quantum physics.

We understand quantum math just fine, that is why people are working on making computers based on quantum principles. String theory and its unifier M theory (the theory of p branes) are quantum field theories. They accept the results of quantum physics and Bell's experiments, so if they succeed, the last hope for hidden variable theory will completely fail.

You hope for an advance in science that will reveal quantors and the there are christians hoping for an advance in science that will reveal the mysterious soul. I believe you both hope in vain.

Ahh... well... Science has developed so much in the last century and the over confident logical positivists (who thought that mathematics could describe everything) and mechanist determinists who held such a self-righteous sway over the last two centuries just cannot accept the upset of their cherished beliefs. It is so much like the Christians since of the renaissance who refuse to take any of the sciences seriously since it started upsetting their apple cart. Human beings are so stubborn. Why not open your minds to new possiblities and try to understand what modern physics is telling us about reality, instead of hoping it will go away. It only seem like science keeps changing its mind to the philosophers, because the only thing overturned is theories of the philosphers. It is one reason for the poor state of metaphysics today. No one wants to do metaphysics for fear that science will prove them wrong again. But the science itself is not overturned, otherwise ask yourself why we still teach the physics of Newton in high school and college?

i think we are cheating by simply dismissing quantum activities as random.

There is no need to worry about science, for scientists will jealously guard the techniques that have brought them their successes in the past regardless of whatever people with an agenda may want to use it to prove. It will find whatever it can find. But I think you are going to have to accept that there are no hidden variables to be found by science. I think "random" is copout too. I think we have to find meaning wherever we can get it. Ultimately science doesn't deal in meaning anyway. It is up to us to find meaning by interpreting its results, and that is a job for philosophy.
We have almost the same situation in regards to relativity. So many people cannot except the failure of thier dreams of the human race traveling the the stars like in Star Trek that they refuse to accept the basic facts of relativity. They even refuse to understand those basic facts to see what relativity is actually saying about what is possible and what is not. For example, the nearest star is about 4 light years away, so assuming we can surpass any current technological limitations how fast do think it would take a traveler to get there? How about the Ring Nebula 2300 light years away? What are the limits of relativity and what are the technological limitations? What does relativity really say about traveling to these places?

[mitchellmckain 0]

I feel the need for a second response to your last post for a few more things I found in that post that deserve a response

What if we sent the whole of the universe, (all infinite dimensions and alternate reality's if they truely exist) back in time by 1000 years.nobody goes back in time, the past is not altered in any way.
everything known, and unknown is put into an identicle state 100 years ago.
not just things like people and plannts, but every photon, every electron, and all energy.  then you let the universe play out aain for a thousand years.
would the universe play out exactly what it played out the first time ???

IF the universe plays out exactly the same 1000 years the second time around, then i would say that nothing magical is happening. The universe has a predictable future state (although you need a calculattor the size and ideticle state of the universe to calculate it)

Boy if you are going to include infinite dimensions and alternate realities (which you are suggesting might interact with our own universe) you might as well call some of the more influential beings in these alternate realities spirits, angels and gods. And by your definition I don't see why these spirtis and such would be magical either.

you may well be right, and probably have modern science on your side in every stagein human science, we have been so confident in what we believe. 

I don't have science on my side. Science is on no side of any philosophical discussion because the physical sciences are just about the mathematical relationship between measurable quantities. My point has never been that modern physics proves that I am right but that it pretty much throws the door wide open, and that the those who like mechanistic determinism or logical positivism cannot claim that science is on their side.

Once science is put aside we really need to go back to primary data upon which philosophy must rely and that is the human experience. I was trying to point out aspects of the human experience that are inconsistent with us being a program on a computer or the imaginings of a super intellegent coma patient. Not a logical inconsistency or anything which would disprove it but a pragmatic inconsistency. The human experience includes this feeling or idea that we are the authors of our own actions. I don't see how sound philosophy could make this primary data a delusion. It is such a fundamental part of the human experience, that a philosophy which denies this experience seems a bit silly.

The point was not so much to refute the possibility of the dreamer but to explore what our human experience implies about the dream and dreamer. For example if this dreamer is so superintelligent that he creates every detail of our universe in his dreams, what does this say about his state of unconsciousness? It seems to me that his unconsciousness is more conscious than our waking state. And if our self awareness means that he does not control us, what does this imply about our relationship to him?

[qwijibow 0]

our quantors would have to instaneously connect separated events. But it is well known that such a connection exceeding the speed of light would would violate traditional causality where cause preceeds effect because of the relativity of simultaneity.

A few months ago i was reading about a breakthrough, proving faster than light communication with quantum entangled photons.

both cannot be correct can they ?

im afraid most of the links you povided go way past my education pyhsics. (my education only went as far as time dialation equations)

What i dont undersand is this whole thing about property's beeing in super-position untill beeing detected.

define detected?

in photon experiments by scientists, detected is when the photon hits the detector equipment.

but out there is space, doesnt a photon have to take a poleisation upon impact with anouther photon on a serface (like in the dual slit experiment)

im trying to find a lnk to that experiment, where a single hpoton is passted through an array of semi-silvered prisoms, and it passes though every different path at the same time.

that blows my mind. if anyone knows it correct name, or hasa link, please post.

when i surgested quantors, i wasnt proposing they exist, im just saying that its hard to believe that there is nothing about quantum physics that we dont know, that could have an impact on how it behaves.

the universe is spinning too fast, the centripedal forces should push it apart, but they dont.

we assume there is huidden mater, we dont know what it is, but we call it dark matter because something on a relaticistic scale, which we thought we understand extremely well doesnt make sence.

You have the better understanding in this matter, but given scientists past blunders, i would never bet my life on quantum theory.

just because we have quantum computers doesmt mean we understand 100% quantum physics.

Cave men knew nothing about the chemical reactions between oxygen and carbon, but they managed to build fires for light and heat pretty well.

so.. to update my origonal argument.... could a quantum mind, made up of quantum particles imagine the universe, and imagibnary self aware people.

(sorry to argue, lol.. im not trying to prove you wrong, just argue that imaginary people could be self aware for philisophical blah blah blah etc. and i like argueing.. lol.)

[mitchellmckain 0]

im trying to find a lnk to that experiment, where a single hpoton is passted through an array of semi-silvered prisoms, and it passes though every different path at the same time.

As for your semi-silvered prisms, I have seen such things in scientific american articles but the principle is the same as Young's two slit experiment. You get the interference pattern because each photon goes through both holes at the same time.

doesnt a photon have to take a poleisation upon impact with anouther photon on a serface (like in the dual slit experiment)

Yes the impact of the photon on a surface is presumed to destroy the superposition. To be more precise, what happens is the interaction of the photon with the electron of an atom in the photo-electric effect, and that interaction apparently occurs with only one electron of one atom. If you send the photons through a Young's two slit experiment one at a time they only hit one part of the screen at a time but over time they create the interference pattern. At least this is what I was told as a physics student, i have my doubts about whether any such experiment has or could be performed. Instead, I think this is what educators have presumed would happen if you could do such an experiment, in order to explain more clearly what is going on. Now here is where it gets crazy. If you put a detector at the slits to tell you which slit each proton went through before it hits the screen, the interference pattern disappears. This may actually have been done since you don't actually have to do it one proton at a time.

What i dont undersand is this whole thing about property's beeing in super-position untill beeing detected.  define detected?

I have to salute you because your confusion reveals deep understanding, no kidding. I have seen more than one presentation of quantum physics where the expert says that if you are not confused then you are missing point. In this case your question is probing a key point which many so called experts are confused about. Some of these idiots think that human awareness is involved. But that is just plain silly. Schrodinger's cat was a thought experiment designed to show this. The idea is that you hook up a box with cat in it to a quantum measureing device so that depending on the result a poison will be released and kill the cat, so the cat is both dead and alive at the same time until the box is opened. This is plainly absurd, the wave collapse must occur in the measuring device.
Anyway back to the key question what does it really mean to be detected. This is a critical event because this is what causes the wave collapse and such events are the only part of quantum physics which is not deterministic. I think it is explored somewhat in something called measurement theory but I never saw an adequate explanation there. So the following explanation is all mine.

First I should explain that the interaction with a quantum sized object does not seem to be the cause of wave collapse because such an object is perfectly able to be in a superposition of states itself. Superpostions involving such interactions do seem to be a routine part of calculations in quantum physics.

In order to be detected there has to be some sort of display of the detection that a human being can read. This is only possible if there is movement of a very large number of electrons or atoms. So the measuring device must amplify the action of one elecron or photon to effect the action of billions of electrons or atoms. I think this amplification process is the key. Interestingly there is a connection here with chaos theory because amplification is a key part of what defines chaotic dynamics too. (I can explain more if you like but I will leave that alone for now) One way to think about amplification is to use the domino effect where one line of dominoes splits into two then two into four and so on until you have millions of lines of dominos. It all starts with that first interaction with the first domino. I think a key characteristic of a process like this is its irreversiblity. If a quantum sized domino fell down then it seems to be able to pick itself up again. But if it is that first domino in the chain reaction, picking itself back up will not change a thing; it is already too late. Quantum superpostion only applies to small things and the amplification process blows it up into a big thing causing the superposition to collapse and forcing them to choose one constistent state or another. Again something very similar happens in chaotic dynamics; it is called bifurcation.

I hardly expect this description to satisfy someone who favors determinism, but this at least is a fair description of a detection event.

By the way if you have a tough time accepting quantum physics you are in very good company. Einstein who made some of the key discoveries of quantum physics himself was a die hard determinist and could never accept what he helped to discover. He also hoped that unified field theory would make it go away. But this was before Bell's results and physics community no longer expects any such thing to happen.

A few months ago i was reading about a breakthrough, proving faster than light communication with quantum entangled photons.both cannot be correct can they ?

Yeah this is hype by some guys in Europe about the faster than like connection between particles that can be set up. But since the basic quantum event is random no information can be sent.

To quote this website: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=946324

However, it remains a matter for debate whether any information exchange is really taking place. You see, the nature of the connections is such that in practice it is quite impossible to send any message faster than light; we don't, and theoretically cannot, exert sufficient control over the interactions involved to do so. This makes it impossible to send a message to your past self, ruling out all the obvious causal paradoxes of that sort; however, it is not clear that paradoxes which don't rely on intentional communication can be ruled out so easily. In any case, quantum entanglement has the rather odd property that while some kind of 'communication' is often said be taking place between two widely-separated receivers, nothing that anyone does at either end will make the slightest bit of difference to what happens at the other.

[qwijibow 0]

I think this amplification process is the key. Interestingly there is a connection here with chaos theory because amplification is a key part of what defines chaotic dynamics too.

if butterflys wings causing hurricanes on the other side of the world isnt a decent example of amplification i dont know what is... LOL.

I hardly expect this description to satisfy someone who favors determinism, but this at least is a fair description of a detection event.

i dont favor determinism.. i just dont believe in true randomness.
if thats a paradox, then you could say im currently in super position... lol.

As for your last quote, i have read 2 things that completely disagree, and am not educated enough to take one side or the other.

I have to salute you because your confusion reveals deep understanding

thanks. before i decied to take computer science at university, i considered physics, and read quaite alot of the material... but eventually decided i didnt have the brains.

but the argument still remains... if my brain can support me, and my self awareness, could it not support anouther. its already supporting one, ME.
maybe a better brain could support 2.. or three, or a billion.

[mitchellmckain 0]

i dont favor determinism.. i just dont believe in true randomness.

if thats a paradox, then you could say im currently in super position... lol.

Well since I don't beleive in determinism or in "true randomness" either we are going to have to work a little harder to find something to argue about.

 

before i decied to take computer science at university, i considered physics, and read quaite alot of the material... but eventually decided i didnt have the brains.

Well with me here, poor as dirt, wondering what my degree is worth, the question about who has the brains is highly debatable. I think the real requirement for going into physics is a peculiar type of insanity.

 

but the argument still remains... if my brain can support me, and my self awareness, could it not support anouther. its already supporting one, ME.

maybe a better brain could support 2.. or three, or a billion.

 

Wow, now this sounds like something completely different, and similar to thoughts of my own. I have thought that, in a way, the brain is kind of a living space for a living organism composed of electrochemical impulses (which you might call a mind). You could wonder if a larger living space accomodate more of such organisms, but they all would have to share the information input of the senses. This sounds more like an explanation for certain psychological disorders. But I suppose if you add a little hardware to supply artificial sensory input of sufficient complexity hmmm...

 

I suspect the difficulty here would be in creating the minds which inhabit this expanded brain, which I fear may be a great deal harder than any of us could imagine. But if we assume that they already exists ........... well I certainly can't think of any objections right now, I will have to think about that for a while.

[saga 0]

My friend your questions cannot be answered. Not even God if he ever existed. Not even death will be able to share a little truth about the world, the universe and everything there is. Remember, the world we know is mans refelection to himself. The laws we create, be it in math or physics are bound only by our imagination. Remember that it is us who created God. Our desperate needs of explanation gave birth to a God whom we have no right to question even his existence.A thing about time. Time does not exist. If our earth is not revolving and there is always a constant day. No passage of night and morning not even the sunset and the sunrise. Then there will be no concept of time. There will be no measurement of our age for there is no yesterday and tomorrow. The only thing we see is the constant change of everything. From a small baby into a big man then into a dying man.You may be right. We are just an imagination of something that is capable of doing so. It is possible, for everything is possible, our limit is our imagination.

[qwijibow 0]

But I suppose if you add a little hardware to supply artificial sensory input of sufficient complexity hmmm...

or the brain could imagine the sensory input.

with halucinagenic drugs people can go screaming off down the road running away from an army of pik axe wielding fairy's. such a huge distortion or reality from taking less than a milligram of a drug, which is then serverely diluted in the body.

the brain, with the right nudge (in this case a drug) is perfectly capable of living in a dream world. the drug itself has no concept of fairy's or how your brain works, the halucinations are generated by the brain itself.

A thing about time. Time does not exist. If our earth is not revolving and there is always a constant day

time does exist, we can see it bending when you do strange things involving high speeds.

i cant remember what its caled, but there is a disk shapes particle accelerator.
the particle moves round in a spriling motion, with a larger radiu as it moves faster.
and is only accelerated at the 12:00 o'clock position by a magnetic pulse.

as the particle accelerates, they have to take into account time dialation when timing the pulses (also increaced mass energy) , especialy when they got abouve the 0.9 * c speeds.

[mitchellmckain 0]

or the brain could imagine the sensory input.
with halucinagenic drugs people can go screaming off down the road running away from an army of pik axe wielding fairy's. such a huge distortion or reality from taking less than a milligram of a drug, which is then serverely diluted in the body.

the brain, with the right nudge (in this case a drug) is perfectly capable of living in a dream world. the drug itself has no concept of fairy's or how your brain works, the halucinations are generated by the brain itself.

I am not sure I would compare a state of permanent dream or drug induced dementia to sentient existence. And before someone takes me to task for saying this, my own grandmother (whom I visit every week) lives mostly in such a state, and while I would not dream of denying her humanity I am still not sure I would call it sentient existence.

[Glockmeister1405241492 0]

or the brain could imagine the sensory input.
with halucinagenic drugs people can go screaming off down the road running away from an army of pik axe wielding fairy's. such a huge distortion or reality from taking less than a milligram of a drug, which is then serverely diluted in the body.

the brain, with the right nudge (in this case a drug) is perfectly capable of living in a dream world. the drug itself has no concept of fairy's or how your brain works, the halucinations are generated by the brain itself.
time does exist, we can see it bending when you do strange things involving high speeds.

It is also possible for the human brain to see you from outside. It is called a 'out-of-body experience and can be caused by magnetic field in a lab.

[qwijibow 0]

Ive seen that experiment !There was anouther one where they stimulated the part of the brain that is thought to control humour.the test subject was made to rad a childrens book about rainbows.every time she read the word "rainbow" they artifically stimulated that part of the brain.this woman was having a laughing fit. she couldnt believe she didnt find "rainbows" funny before... she couldnt understand why no-on else in the room rfound it funny.she couldnt explain what was so funny about rainbows... just like normal poeple cant explain why its soo funny when someone pulls a funny face... its just funny.when they stoped the artificial stimulation, she was very confsed as to why she found "rainbows" funny before.while in the artificial state, it it all seemed real.In college, there was an end of exams trip to amsterdam. (marajuana is legal in amsterdam) so i decided to have a go, see wha its all about.anyways, later in the bathroom, i was about to fill a empty bottle of water from the sink. i was spinning the bottle cap off, when the bottle cap flew off, bounced off the mirror, and landed in the sink...what I saw, was slightly different.. my eyes in my current state, reacting slower saw the bottle lid go to the mirror, then my eyes continued to follow the reflection of the bottle lid, and land in the sink on the other side of the mirror.for a few moments i sbelieved in GOD, the X files and everthing.and when i saw the bottle lid on my side of the mirror, i naturally assumed that this was the lid from the otehr side of the mirror.the next morning i felt a bit stupid, but maybe we are all currently in an unusual state of mind....if the soul is real, and after we die and go the the afterlife... then we will live without all of the chemicalls currently influencing us.without the need for sexual reproduction, and without testosterone, and other sex hormones, we would all probably look back an wonder why we wasted soo much time chasing girls... but at the time.. it just seems os normal.