Contrary to common understanding
Posted on: August 5, 2007 - 4:16pm
Offline
Contrary to common understanding
I enjoy attempting to prove something contrary to commonly accepted truth. May be because, on the basiss of I = log (base 2) (1/p), I gain more by doing so.
I could learn something new, that is ok, but If the new thing shatters my previously understood/accepted ideas I then enjoy even more.
So here is my first topic.
Looking deep, Is the real world digital or analog?
Please give supporting explanation.
- Login to post comments
I don't understand the question.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
With all the knob, buttons, and levers in the world, it is definately analog.
Flow of time, change in distance as we drive cars, amount of milk - are these smooth transition (analog) or jumpy (digital).
I responded a good post for you in the "Free Will - Is there is any?". you will see 19 line items. It is probably my most recent post. Please respond to it.
Also please see "OK, Tim, Let's Play", My last response to Patrician. Scroll up to see his responses.
What do you think about his/my response?
Try again.
I thought the question was about opinion. Why dont you tell me the correct answer?
Ok. I understand the question now, and the answer is, I don't know the answer.
This is beyond what I know of science, so I'll just watch the discussion.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Misuse of 'analog' and 'digital'.
Ok, use it correctly then.
I might have used wrong word.
Please offer a better word if you have any.
analog. digital is merely data and signals. analog is tangible.
a painting is analog. scan it in and the resulting image is no longer something you can hold and touch, because it's digital.
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts
Vexed,
I thought, you said, I missused words "analog" and "digital".
If you do not know what I am talking about then how did you conclude that I missused them?
[Actually, I could, since English is my second languge. I do make a lot of error in my writing.]
Please define analog and digital as you see it.
Please give logical definition instead of dictionary definition.
I think digital has simply come to mean that due to the fact that information in a computer's memory is stored digitally. It has many dictionary definitions but I think that something that can be represented by discreete values is still a valid use.
You can also store information in analog form. Audio cassettes and records are analog.
The important part is that digital information is represented by separated values with no fuzzy area between, In a computer's memory a value is either 1 or 0, you will never have the value 0.278567
If it was analog you could find 0.278567, 0.278568 and an infinite number of possible values in between.
I think this thread is intended to be about quantum mechanics which shows that at the sub atomic level some things seem to behave in ways that can be represented by defnite and seperate values. for example, an electron in an atom can only occupy certain energy level, It cannot be between.
I have no idea it we can find smilar behaviour in space-time though.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
ParanoidAgnostic,
You are correct. You are correct.
That's exactly what I meant. You are very logcial. You also read my mind.
What kind of training did you have?
Can you please tell me few things about yourself? Like your age, formal educational level and field.
How did you learn to reason like that?
Where did you learn to get to the bottom of the conversation/argument using logical definition so quickly? Very few people can do that.
You must be good in root cause analysis.
What fields interests you?
Where do you work?
Please check out this thread http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/9204
Vexed is saying I have to be a (in his word) neurologist, a medical specialist with advanced training in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the brain, spinal cord, nerves and muscles, to conclude that brain washing actually distroys some logical circuitry in the brain.
And voiderest is saying my conclusion that "There is a good probability that brainwashing by theist's faith destroys inter-neurons logical connections or how the neurons stores information etc. or some logic circuitry." doesn't have any proof.
Please see my response there and you respond.
I'm 25 and hold a university degree in secondary education. I specialised in mathematics and science (physics). I'm not sure what the system is where you are from but in Australia it's a 4 year course and included study at university level in the fields you plan to teach. I followed some of the core mathematics degree units up to their final year (3rd) and physics up to 2nd year. If I ever organise my time better I'm considerinf doing the rest of the units to get a mathematics degree just so I can say I have one.
I'm lazy. I never studied I had to learn quickly work most things out from first principles, reason based on understanding the basic underlying rules rather than a prelearned techniques. For this reason I've always loved mathematics and physics. the other subjects you kinda had to memorize to some degree.
Well I was cheating this time. I've pondered the same question, in pretty much the same terms. I learnt the basics of quantum mechanics soon after watching the matrix for the first time and made the connection beteen quantised values and digital representation. I wondered if you could argue that the world was a computer symulation based on the aparent digital nature of subatomic particles.
Other than that I blame my father. When he asks an innocent sounding question he's often setting you up to admit to something (usually something you're actually guilty of anyway, but that's beside the point), so I learnt to figure out what's motivating the question before I answer.
For example my first reaction to these questions I'm currently answering was that you're being sarcastic, making fun of my pointing out the obvious (this one was obvious to me as stated earlier). Then I realised that since you were agreeing with me it would not be likely that you're mocking me, plus not everyone has studied quantum mechanics (or watched the matrix so close to studying quantum mechanics).
The last thought for your motivation was flattery. People like to talk about themselves and like to believe people are interested when they do. I'm enjoying this immensely
You could be trying to win me as an ally.
I concluded that you were probably not setting me up or mocking me and choose to believe (possibly my own arrogance) that your interest is genuine.. so I'm answering honestly.
This is nothing personal, I'm just explicitly stating the thought process that I go through before I answer any question from any person.
Mathematics and computer programming. I have a more passive interest in science and history. I find I can be as hands on with mathematics and programming as I like whereas in the other fields I cannot test most ideas personally and generally need to take someone's word for it.
I quit teaching after 2 years (couldn't take any more abuse from 14 year olds) and I'm now a computer programmer. Fortunatelty I'd been teacing myself programming from books since I was about 10. I'm also considering studying computer science/software development just to improove my employability in the field. (and I haven't even enrolled for the maths degree I want either, I'd better get my act together before I think of something else I'd also want to study... anthropology looks interesting)
I'll have a look but I doubt that I know enough about neurology myself to have any valuable input.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
ParanoidAgnostic:
You are good. Very smart.
You are good psychologist too - psychologist in a sense that you extract the root thoughts out of a conversation and properly process it. Most people, even at atheists’ website are not able to extract the essence of an argument. They get side tracked.
Given your age you are unbelievably sharp.
I visited Australia and New Zealand couple of years ago on our family vacation. Both of these two countries are great, very friendly, nice, and trust worthy people down under. The US is no longer as good as it used to be couple of decades ago.
You wrote: I wondered if you could argue that the world was a computer simulation based on the apparent digital nature of subatomic particles.
Yes. Its. As a matter of fact simulation or not it doesn’t matter. As long as things are consistent it is real. The only reason dream is not real because happenings in a dream is not coherent and that we wake up. Note: how much I emphasize on coherency and consistency. This is what makes something real.
You wrote: so I learnt to figure out what's motivating the question before I answer.Very smart.You wrote: I concluded that you were probably not setting me up or mocking me and choose to believe (possibly my own arrogance) that your interest is genuine.. so I'm answering honestly.You are correct. I was not doing sarcasim. I do not praise people easily.
But you are wrong in that I was trying to win an ally.
Proof: According to my coherent logic, Ally is not good for testing one's hypothesis. One need enemy. This is the first atheists’ web site where I am so nice. Generally, I piss everyone out. I want as many arguments attacking my hypothesis as possible. That is the way I find fault in my logic and correct them. Or think hard and find answers. In politics all you need is ally, no enemy is good.
Did you see my post about content of information? About, I = log (base 2) (1/p) please visit that. It is in the same thread, “Free Will – Is there any?” What do you think. Read my conversation chat with "iluvc2h5oh". Give me your feed back , You should love it it is math
See my rebuttal to your argument about Brain Wash vs. Understood in this thread: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/9204
I mean I can't write your questions for you.
Analog and digital refer to data storage and data transmission via electronic equipment.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts
You are talking about dictionary defintion only.
Apply logical meaning, word association, to extract the essence of ideas. Dictionary defintion is never sufficient. some time it could be even contradictory.
digital is quanta, suddent jump
analog is continuous, smooth.
I don't see 'digital' as a 'sudden jump' but rather on or off. I can see analog as continuous, but not smooth. Sorry I just do not agree with what you are saying.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts
Uhmmm... the world is analog. Why are you even considering that it is digital? Digital just means analog explained in quantitative data
Anyways... it makes no sense to apply digital to anything that does not have a chip in it. Even the mechanics of creating digital data are made using analog values.
Now if you go into the realm of sub-atomic particles... Can you go infinetelly small or is there a limit? I know there is a limit of what we can perceive... but is there a limit on how close you can approach 0 without actually reaching 0?
Agreed. It seems as though Tim asks for opinions but only looks seriously at the ones he agrees with.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
was that an answer?
Heisenberg Uncertainty principle FTW!
I don't need to give an answer. You already have the one you want
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You do not have a counter argument.
knob and lever implies analog. Buttons implies digital.
Due to space quantization, length, time, and mass quantization, the real world is digital.
In digital world all you get is integer multiple of things.
In analog you can have infinite points between any two measurement.
Amount of water is integer multiple of water molucules in its finest.
Macroscopicly, world gives you an illusion of being analog but it is really digital.
Ah yeah. You got me there. I should have left the buttons out of my answer.
By your definitions, you would consider a ruler (measuring instrument) to be digital.
Btw, a button is analog. When you push a button the machine will interpret the analog function and translate it to digital.
PS: PLEASE DON"T IGNORE MY ANSWER THIS TIME
Ah dammit now I dont know if my answer was good or not.
Think of music recording. Sound is an analog function.
But sound can be stored in a computer as digital data. Does this mean sound is digital?
For example: a microphone will take the analog function of sound (wave, continous), sample it by using computer software
then store it in the hard drive. This doesn't mean that sound itself is digital. You can't hear digital sound. In order for you to hear digital sound the computer has to convert the digital data into an analog function (speakers).
You haven't paid serious attention to the counter arguments brought to you. why should I add mine? If I wanted to be disregarded, I'd talk to a Christian.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I was thinking somewhat on the same level. Since I am an electronic musician the first thing that comes to mind when someone says analog or digital is synthesizers. On an analog synthesizer you have knobs, levers, buttons, sliders. This is how I came to the conclusion that the world must be analog. With so many things you can modify using different methods it must indeed be analog.
But then I realized that there are also digital synthesizers that appear to be analog. Now Im confused about what my answer really is.
(Please disregard my logic as an actual answer. I am aware that the world and music are two different things. This topic is far beyond what I understand.
)
www.garageband.com/artist/abandonmypeace
We don't percieve the world as it is. Our brains are computers that read data sent to it in electrical form from our senses. Our minds are almost lagging behind or jumping ahead. I am not a scientist but I think I can see from my experience that time flows in units rather than in a smooth flow, although it is so fast it seems like a flow, like a movie film. However the present moment abides constantly like a rock. It is the only REAL moment. But how small is the present moment? I wonder what physics says about that? It is pretty small. It takes mind training and concentration to really percieve just how small this present moment is. At first it is hard to focus on and my mind slips behind or ahead a few moments. But to encounter this reality as it is and figure out whether it is digital or analog one needs to be in this present moment, where reality is, and see for yourself. Instead of philosophize about concepts of reality, which is not reality.
I think if you read a book about science or physics and believe what it says without making it your own experience that is just as bad as reading the Bible and believing in it without it being your own experience.
My opinion is that the virtue of being an Atheist is to think for yourself and make your own conclusions and not to "believe" without it being your own experience. If we collect second hand knowledge we can fool ourselves into thinking that "we know". When we really don't know something unless we experience it.
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm?CFID=17149482&CFTOKEN=73779970
Read more about the second quote: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time/?searchterm=time
Article Tittle: Time may not exist.
silentseba
Now you are coorrect.
Please go back and read you first few post in this thread. What a stark improvement in your understanding. Very good.
Since all fundamental properties in nature (time, length, mass, charge etc.) comes in integer multiple of smallest quanta the world is a digital place. For something to be analog there must exist infinite point between two, anything. Even the number of points in the entire universe is not infinite. Universe itself is not infinite. Pure mathematics could be analog. Differential equation is analog but summation is digital.