Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ccc

Horizon Bbc 2 9Pm - Looks Good.

Recommended Posts

What is reality ?

Been discussed a lot on here recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes in and a huge let down so far.

I was hoping it would be a programme on the metaphysical but it appears to be a very dull programme retracing stuff most of Horizon's audience already knows.

Very dated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye. I thought this would be about all crazy stuff. A bit boring so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The little bit I watched at about 20 minutes in got me hooked, I'll have to shout at someone at virgin and get my 'catch up tv' working again ;)

(I'm a bit of a particle physics nerd so I'll have to watch it properly)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was very good. I think the very essence of the skill in making a programme like this is to explain very difficult concepts in an understandable way - they did this and linked it together in a reasonably interesting narrative with a touch of the personal, much like a good novel can do. I think that this can get overlooked in the rush to claim that everything is being dumbed down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn I deleted it from my PVR after the first two poor reviews! :lol:

Horizon has been very disappointing of late, tedious, drawn out with that 'so what' feeling at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn I deleted it from my PVR after the first two poor reviews! :lol:

Horizon has been very disappointing of late, tedious, drawn out with that 'so what' feeling at the end.

I agree. last weeks was just a vanity project for that comedian bloke whose name I forget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was pretty good. The layman can not understand why things are thus because the layman has almost no knowledge of maths. Thus we are reduced to the status of parishioners listening to the high priests telling us the nature of heaven. You either believe or you learn the maths yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like to watch these sorts or programmes but have only a very basic understanding of Quantum Mechanics so perhaps someone could explain Hawkins theory that knowledge cannot be lost into a black hole but is wrapped in two dimensions on event horizon. Why can't knowledge be absorbed by a black hole?

I can only surmise that everything can be explained by mathematics and as mathematics is an absolute truth then it cannot be lost.

Yeah, ok, I'm batting well above my weight here but to be honest I thought that the contributors to the programme have lost the plot somewhat with the idea that everything exists in a two dimensional hologram. It reminded me of Zod and his cohorts imprisoned in a triangular holgram in the Superman movie.

No doubt my thoughts can be easily dismissed by the fact that I cannot comprehend such things, but I do try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like to watch these sorts or programmes but have only a very basic understanding of Quantum Mechanics so perhaps someone could explain Hawkins theory that knowledge cannot be lost into a black hole but is wrapped in two dimensions on event horizon. Why can't knowledge be absorbed by a black hole?

I can only surmise that everything can be explained by mathematics and as mathematics is an absolute truth then it cannot be lost.

Yeah, ok, I'm batting well above my weight here but to be honest I thought that the contributors to the programme have lost the plot somewhat with the idea that everything exists in a two dimensional hologram. It reminded me of Zod and his cohorts imprisoned in a triangular holgram in the Superman movie.

No doubt my thoughts can be easily dismissed by the fact that I cannot comprehend such things, but I do try.

Well most of the chat on this sort of stuff is simply theory. Albeit very smart people involved. However they are simply making stuff up and speculating whether it may be 'reality' or not.

Who ******ing knows !! In fact even one of the bods last night stated this. Nobody fully understands quantum mechanics - I think was his quote.

Much is just guesswork. Not really worth trying to comprehend IMO. If these bods with mega brains are clueless than what hope have us lot got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well most of the chat on this sort of stuff is simply theory. Albeit very smart people involved. However they are simply making stuff up and speculating whether it may be 'reality' or not.

Who ******ing knows !! In fact even one of the bods last night stated this. Nobody fully understands quantum mechanics - I think was his quote.

Much is just guesswork. Not really worth trying to comprehend IMO. If these bods with mega brains are clueless than what hope have us lot got.

What you say is true, but I can usually follow where they're trying to go with things and find a lot of merit in what they say. Last nights offering I found, quite frankly, laughable and felt they had lost it by over thinking things, but no doubt that has it's uses too. Maybe it was just that the analogies they used weren't comparable to what they were saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well most of the chat on this sort of stuff is simply theory. Albeit very smart people involved. However they are simply making stuff up and speculating whether it may be 'reality' or not.

Who ******ing knows !! In fact even one of the bods last night stated this. Nobody fully understands quantum mechanics - I think was his quote.

Much is just guesswork. Not really worth trying to comprehend IMO. If these bods with mega brains are clueless than what hope have us lot got.

Nah, they understand it, the problem they have is it doesn't fit with there belief in what reality is. Everything thats was on this show has been known about for thousands of years. Catch up, free yourself of the left brain prison. Take the test

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The black hole question is really bugging me. If everything is drawn into a black hole and the black hole then swallows itself so it no longer exists, how can knowledge exist if nothing exists to ask the question. Perhaps it does still exist but can never be known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you say is true, but I can usually follow where they're trying to go with things and find a lot of merit in what they say. Last nights offering I found, quite frankly, laughable and felt they had lost it by over thinking things, but no doubt that has it's uses too. Maybe it was just that the analogies they used weren't comparable to what they were saying.

I see what you say. Yep I had similar thoughts. Holograms and all :blink:

Now I am not saying it is true or not. ****** knows. But the people that came up with this theory are not saying much different.

Something interesting to think about - but not exactly backed up by much.

Nah, they understand it, the problem they have is it doesn't fit with there belief in what reality is. Everything thats was on this show has been known about for thousands of years. Catch up, free yourself of the left brain prison. Take the test

I am not sure they understand it. I doubt anyone does. I will have a go at that later though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The black hole question is really bugging me. If everything is drawn into a black hole and the black hole then swallows itself so it no longer exists, how can knowledge exist if nothing exists to ask the question. Perhaps it does still exist but can never be known.

Saying something no longer exists in any form whatsoever just doesn't cut it for me. Surely the main argument against religion is if God created everything, then who created God? He just popped out of the ether? Something appearing out of nothing is the same as something disappearing into nothing. In my book anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The black hole question is really bugging me. If everything is drawn into a black hole and the black hole then swallows itself so it no longer exists, how can knowledge exist if nothing exists to ask the question. Perhaps it does still exist but can never be known.

Black holes spring up to get rid of stuff he's finished with?

I agree with others - didnt learn anyfink new either!

"Mathematics explains this and that"

Well big deal - look at the numericals in Bible/hebrew gematria

Look at old civilisations they knew the Universal Maths - the Mayans with their "Long counts" etc

We hit end of 13 Baktun Cycle Dec - 2012 and start the 14th.

Baktun contains 144,000 days 13-0-0-0-0

"The beginning of the thirteen baktun count, August 13, 3113 BC

The knowledge has always been around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. last weeks was just a vanity project for that comedian bloke whose name I forget.

It didn't really show anything interesting, except for the superfluid helium, and ended up being just global warming propaganda, stated as fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, ok, I'm batting well above my weight here but to be honest I thought that the contributors to the programme have lost the plot somewhat with the idea that everything exists in a two dimensional hologram. It reminded me of Zod and his cohorts imprisoned in a triangular holgram in the Superman movie

I find the theory rather elegant. A hologram can be made using an ordinary photographic glass plate. When you look at one under magnification you see lots of wavy lines running alongside each other, the interference pattern. This is a 2D encoding of a 3D image. Shine your light source on it to see the 3D image. All you would have to do to create a 3D holographic TV is calculate and change the pattern on the plate fast enough. If we can describe the 3D universe at any given time by a 2D representation, we have simplified the problem.

The hologram is beyond our reach but something must be shining through to create 3D space. Would it then be possible to create a device to change reality? Block the incoming waves that create a rock and substitute for the pattern for a tree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was pretty good. The layman can not understand why things are thus because the layman has almost no knowledge of maths. Thus we are reduced to the status of parishioners listening to the high priests telling us the nature of heaven. You either believe or you learn the maths yourself.

At least in principle, anyone could learn the maths -- then, with their new knowledge and expertise, either agree with or challenge/supplant the current wisdom. The maths isn't intended to be an arbitrary collection of stuff to learn as 'gospel': the models the maths describes make good predictions about how the universe behaves. If you can come up with a model that more completely or more accurately predicts the universe's behaviour, you get to decide what the maths is.

Isn't this substantially different from a religious priesthood?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like to watch these sorts or programmes but have only a very basic understanding of Quantum Mechanics so perhaps someone could explain Hawkins theory that knowledge cannot be lost into a black hole but is wrapped in two dimensions on event horizon. Why can't knowledge be absorbed by a black hole?

I'm no expert, so I can't really help much, but AFAIK, the thing that Hawking brought to the discussion was that black holes 'evaporate' (for the want of a better word) and don't last forever. I think it was originally believed that, because black holes let stuff in but nothing escapes, once formed, a black hole last forever. This would mean that any information associated with anything sucked into a black hole stays in the black hole forever (and isn't lost).

Hawking postulated that stuff does come out of a black hole -- this is what (again AFAIK, playing jazz here quite a bit) is called Hawking Radiation -- and this means that black holes don't apparently last forever.

As for the hologram stuff, I think that this programme was the first time I'd heard of this, so I imagine it will take some reading and more Horizons over the coming years before sufficient puzzle pieces can be fitted together by ordinary lay-people to actually get some kind of feeling for what it's about and how the hologram idea works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well most of the chat on this sort of stuff is simply theory. Albeit very smart people involved. However they are simply making stuff up and speculating whether it may be 'reality' or not.

Who ******ing knows !! In fact even one of the bods last night stated this. Nobody fully understands quantum mechanics - I think was his quote.

Much is just guesswork. Not really worth trying to comprehend IMO. If these bods with mega brains are clueless than what hope have us lot got.

I think this might be a misinterpretation.

As physics has progressed, its findings have generally become less and less comprehensible to normal people because physics reveals a universe whose underlying workings are less and less analogous to the everyday world.

Most people can fairly easily get a grasp on Newton's work (at least the broad brushstrokes) because its predictions intuitively feel right -- the reason is that Newtonian Mechanics fairly accurately describes the universe behaving more or less as our brains have evolved to expect the universe to behave. There aren't too many big conceptual leaps or too much 'weirdness' in a Newtonian universe.

I think when physicists say that no one understand Quantum Mechanics, they mean on an intuitive level -- because the quantum-mechanical model of the universe behaves in ways that humankind could only consider as being crazy.

However, physicists do understand Q.M. in the sense that they have a precise mathematical description of a quantum-mechanical model of the universe, and, with it, can make predictions that are staggeringly accurate about how the universe will behave which are all borne out by observation of the actual universe.

They just don't have an intuitive feel of 'why' it is that way.

So... I think they don't understand it (why), but they do understand it (what), if you see what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least in principle, anyone could learn the maths -- then, with their new knowledge and expertise, either agree with or challenge/supplant the current wisdom. The maths isn't intended to be an arbitrary collection of stuff to learn as 'gospel': the models the maths describes make good predictions about how the universe behaves. If you can come up with a model that more completely or more accurately predicts the universe's behaviour, you get to decide what the maths is.

Isn't this substantially different from a religious priesthood?

Not necessarily. Throughout history there have been individuals who have changed almost singlehandedly the accepted theological 'model' of the universe -St Paul, Aquinas, Luther, etc. Before the 17th century or so, religion was an attempt to understand and predict how the universe behaves also.

Also, I don't think it's fair to say 'anyone can learn the maths'; I have tried myself and found it very difficult despite being an 'educated' person. I can't come up with a new model to compete with, say, someone like Stephen Hawking; so I have to 'believe' in what he says just as a medieval peasant had no way of arguing with his priest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. Throughout history there have been individuals who have changed almost singlehandedly the accepted theological 'model' of the universe -St Paul, Aquinas, Luther, etc. Before the 17th century or so, religion was an attempt to understand and predict how the universe behaves also.

Also, I don't think it's fair to say 'anyone can learn the maths'; I have tried myself and found it very difficult despite being an 'educated' person. I can't come up with a new model to compete with, say, someone like Stephen Hawking; so I have to 'believe' in what he says just as a medieval peasant had no way of arguing with his priest.

You missed an important part of what I said -- the phrase 'in principle'! :)

Yes, the maths is tricky, but it's open to anyone in principle to spot errors or find a more complete or more accurate mathematical model. You don't have to be the Pope to be allowed to decide how the interpretation of the Good Book should be altered. The scientific equivalent repository of knowledge is open to change from anyone who can demonstrably do better.

Specifically, the scientific community would tend to encourage anyone and everyone to come up with something that is more complete and/or more accurate.

I think this is in contrast to religion for the most part where not only is it deemed unnecessary for religious claims to be borne out by evidence, but, historically, religious communities have not been all that accommodating to those who would challenge or wish to change things.

Also, isn't the idea of change in religious doctrine and discipline at odds with the notion of a holy book being the inerrant word (directly or indirectly) of God? In a way, religious moderation (and an openness to gradual change) is a less defensible position than that of the religious absolutist, don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. Throughout history there have been individuals who have changed almost singlehandedly the accepted theological 'model' of the universe -St Paul, Aquinas, Luther, etc. Before the 17th century or so, religion was an attempt to understand and predict how the universe behaves also.

Also, I don't think it's fair to say 'anyone can learn the maths'; I have tried myself and found it very difficult despite being an 'educated' person. I can't come up with a new model to compete with, say, someone like Stephen Hawking; so I have to 'believe' in what he says just as a medieval peasant had no way of arguing with his priest.

If as the doc says the universe is made of maths then your brain will be performing more calculations than a kray super computor to perform the most simple of tasks eg walking, talking, facial recognition.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed an important part of what I said -- the phrase 'in principle'! :)

Yes, the maths is tricky, but it's open to anyone in principle to spot errors or find a more complete or more accurate mathematical model. You don't have to be the Pope to be allowed to decide how the interpretation of the Good Book should be altered. The scientific equivalent repository of knowledge is open to change from anyone who can demonstrably do better.

Specifically, the scientific community would tend to encourage anyone and everyone to come up with something that is more complete and/or more accurate.

I think this is in contrast to religion for the most part where not only is it deemed unnecessary for religious claims to be borne out by evidence, but, historically, religious communities have not been all that accommodating to those who would challenge or wish to change things.

Also, isn't the idea of change in religious doctrine and discipline at odds with the notion of a holy book being the inerrant word (directly or indirectly) of God? In a way, religious moderation (and an openness to gradual change) is a less defensible position than that of the religious absolutist, don't you think?

I think change in religion is simply more gradual, probably because it is, as you say, a more closed process which is less open to influence by individuals than science. But change still does happen.

Change in religious belief tends to take decades (even the establishment of the church in any form we would recognise today took about 300 years after Christ's death). I think most major religions are open, albeit very slightly, to doctrinal change, or else they would die out. One of the strengths (or weaknesses, depending on your view) of Christianity is its adaptability.

The business about inerrant word of God etc etc is a rather more recent development anyway. At the Council of Nicea in 410(?) the religious authorities, as Paine points out in 'The Age of Reason', voted on what was to be the 'inerrant word of God'....the idea that nothing can or ought to change in religion is, as far as I can see, a desperate rearguard action by some in the church (and in Islam) against modernism.

And while we're on the subject of those 'not all that accommodating to those who would challenge or wish to change things' the scientific community is open to that charge also...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.