Brief Apology

Sorry I haven't updated in a while peeps; been very busy at work and school!

Will update soon :)

Andrew

Researching other peoples thoughts on Time and Consciousness (Science/Philosophy)

This is a post thinking and reflecting on some of my earlier posts regarding time and consciousness whilst researching other peoples similar theories.

Consciousness

Integrated Information Theory looks like a very interesting concept after doing some extra reading.

IIT seems to focus on the fact that a consciousness can not only see and record a large amount of information but link it together meaningfully at the same time. It suggests that these links between pieces of information set whether we are conscious or not and that our level of consciousness can be calculated by a mathematical method to create a constant phi. This seems to touch and develop on ideas I have personally pondered upon here on my blog.

Sources of Interest regarding IIT;

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-theory-of-consciousness

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/science/21consciousness.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&sq=integrated%20information%20theory&st=nyt&scp=1&

Quantum noise, entanglement and chaos in the quantum field theory of mind/brain states

http://arxiv.org/pdf/q-bio/0309009v1.pdf - needs to be read; notes/thoughts may follow.

Research into Time specifically –

The original concept of time tends to be called “Newtonian Time” (named after Isaac Newton) ; this is based on the premise that Time is another dimension in the Universe along with the 3 dimensions of space. It also presumes that time is unchanging in its speed in comparison with any other external bodies acting upon it.

“Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time ...”

I found the highlighted part of that quote particularly interesting as it may explain my confusion with time as a 4^th dimension; perhaps I have confused this so called “common time” with “true time”.

There are other ways of looking at time now. Since Albert Einstein showed the world Relativity and special relativity time was changed completely and now wasn’t thought of as a constant but as something relative to the speed of light. I’m not too familiar yet with special relativity and the warping of space-time but it is much less “absolute” that Newtonian time. Other scientists claim that Time is immeasurable as it is not a thing or event and a lot of philosophers have other views on what time is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_time_and_space

After reading about other people’s thoughts I feel that even though I need to try to understand time and consciousness more by learning about suggested theories in more detail (especially relativity); my ideas seem to touch on those thoughts others have had. However I probably need to attain a better level of understanding In the subject area until I start making full theories.

Maybe in time (Pun not intended :P) I will come back to writing a theory of time as it is something which has always fascinated me.

A brief guide to the particles within the Standard Model (Science)

The standard model of the universe is concerned with the particles and forces within our universe and how they interact with each other – and how the forces are carried.

Initially Greek philosophers such as Democritus proposed that the world could have been made of tiny atoms which made up everything.

This was found to be true; but it wasn’t the end. Then using such experiments as Rutherfords gold scattering experiment we deduced that there are 3 types of particle within the Atom; Electrons, Protons and Neutrons.

Lately due to the recent steps forward in high-energy physics we have been able to detect even small particles. These particles are found within the protons and neutrons, or in other particles made in other interactions (or on there own).

“Quarks” are the smallest known particles known to us at the moment. Initially we started to know about the Up and Down quarks found in protons and neutrons; but after finding more particles and observing many more reactions at higher energies we found 2 heavier quarks “Charm” and “Strange”. These particles are much more massive than the up and down quarks; and this pattern is continued when we found the Top and Bottom quarks with the Top quark being more massive than a whole proton (which is amazing considering the top quark is a fundamental particle and the proton is made of 3 “uud”)

Leptons are also included within the standard model; the simplest lepton is an Electron and this also has a Electron Neutrino aswell. However heavier versions of the electron have been found to match the groups of quarks we found before. These are called Muon and Tau (they also have corresponding Neutrinos).

Gauge Bosons or force carriers are commonly known for carrying forces between molecules and are found in the stage between when a particle is turning into another particle. The 4 bosons are photons (electromagnetic), gluons (strong) and z & w bosons (Weak). These bosons as you can see match up with the forces we know in our universe.

But where is gravity? You may ask. Well unfortunately the standard model doesn’t account for gravity – it is one of it’s major flaws. However there are theory that we should find graviton particles which carry the force of gravity like the other bosons do.

The final thing I will mention is the Higgs Boson.

This is the most recent significant finding in physics and is extremely exciting. It proposes that the higgs boson is the particle which gives particles mass and opens up a whole new set of questions for us to ponder over and experiment on.

So that’s a basic overview of the standard model’s particles!

Have a great day :D 

p.s remember when you say more “massive” or more “energy” it means the same thing as E = mc^2 so a particle with more energy is heavier and vice versa.

Diffraction and Ghost Electrons (Science)

When you usually think of a particle you may think of a solid object; a definite thing which you could measure the whereabouts of if you wanted if you knew enough information about the particle.

Unfortunately this classical physics view of the world is no longer thought of as “correct”. (I say unfortunately as it makes things more awkward; however I like a challenge so I would say it was more interesting)

To give you an extremely brief idea about what I’m saying I will postulate an example:

Say we take a beam of electrons and put it through a single slit diffraction experiment like so:

We get a diffraction pattern like this

We get this pattern because of electron wave-particle duality but that’s not important for the moment.

Lets make the experiment a little more complex lets say there are 2 slits after the single slit diffraction experiment (so a double slit diffraction experiment) A and B. Now when we fire the electron beam the electron can either go through A or B to hit the screen.

Now as we should we get an interference pattern similar to a wave when we conduct the experiment.

Here’s where it gets weird.

Imagine that there’s a detector at A and B. These detectors ascertain whether or not the electron passes through it or not.

When this is done in experiment the final interference pattern changes; we only get single slit diffraction interference pattern.

Why? We must assume that by measuring where the electron is we have made it so that it has to travel through 1 path; and the rest of the time it actually travels through A and B as 2 “Ghost” electrons. It travels every available path to the screen until it is detected and then all the ghost electrons “collapse” into one “real” electron.

Believe it or not; one single electron fired in the experiment will actually diffract with itself.

Happy Easter :D

Andrew

Unification of time/ frame rate and consciousness (Science/Philosophy)

I have recently researched into time and consciousness in more detail see "Research into Time and consciousness"

I do understand that these ideas are probably not true; however they are ideas that I feel I should write down otherwise i shall forget or lose my thoughts/ideas.

Before you read this it would be advisable to read Thoughts about consciousness 1 and 2, and Time.

If you have read my thoughts on time it will occur to you that my ideas work on the principle that time as a physical quantity or dimension doesn't actually exist.

When we view the world we see a specific amount of “frames” per second. Our other senses view the world in a similar way, as our brains cannot process the information quicker than a certain “frame rate” (When I use the word “frame” it is just to more easily visualise the idea at hand).

If we said that we could see f frames in one second at the conscious state we are in at the moment then what would happen if we saw the world at f/2 frames per second.

After a little thought it occurred to me that time would effectively speed up if you moved from x frames to x/2 frames per second.

If you imagine that every function, electrical impulse or induced movement happened at half the speed your mind would work at half the speed as normal. This would in turn make the world seem twice as fast.

Lets take some individual time singularities; I will name them f; standing for frames.

If an object moves a certain distance in a certain number of frames then.

Vf = d/f

Vf = Velocity in frames

Vt = Velocity in time

d = Distance on metres

f = Frames passed

k = frame rate of eye per second

e.g if the object moves 12 metres in 10 frames

Vf = 12/10

Vf = 1.2 metres per frame

If we say k is the frame rate per second of the eye then.

Vt = d/ ( f/k )

Using the same example with k = 10

Vt = 12 / (10/10)

Vt = 12 m/s

This also means:

Vt = Vf*k

Vt = 1.2*10

Vt = 12 m/s

Proof that time travels faster if your frame rate is slower:

Vf = d/f

Divide frame rate by 2 but object distance moved stays the same.

Vf = d/f/2

Makes Metres travelled per frame double.

Vf = 2d/f

Therefore

2Vf =2d/f

And so even in seconds it will appear faster.

Vt = Vf*k

2Vt = 2Vf*k

Velocity in time twice as fast as original.

To be continued…..

The Illogical Fear of Death (Philosophy)

In our society the subject of death is usually surrounded with misery and sadness due to the loss of a life. This loss of life can understandably seem frightening.

However; it has struck me that if you think about death by natural causes or by an accident there is really very little to be scared of.

When we do die; if nothing else happens afterwards are we not truly at peace? No problems, no things to do, nothing.

Although this sounds like a fundamentally bad thing that nothing happens; I imagine it being incredibly peaceful.

Anyway; the point is if you are scared of death in the sense of passing into nothingness don’t be.

It is probably a much more painless and peaceful experience than you could ever perceive in your conscious mind at it is difficult to perceive being unconscious through a conscious mind.

Vision and Colour (Science)

It always amazes me that for such a highly evolved animal (in terms of the way we think and the way our brain has developed) that humans have surprisingly limited vision. If you think about the spectrum of possible frequencies we could see it seems that the amount of light we are able to see (more commonly referred to as visible light) is somewhat limited.

It took my interest so I did a little research and found some quite interesting stuff on the internet about how other animals view things.

As is happens our eyesight comparably isn’t all that bad; as there are lots of animals which have worse eyesight- especially in terms of colour.

For example cats and dogs see things in a much duller way than we do; with less of an emphasis on colour and more emphasis on movement.

There was some information I was expecting to find; such as the fact that bees can see UV light. However I wasn't previously aware that snakes could possibly see Infra red light and some Birds and spiders could also see UV light.

Interesting things I found include the fact that

• Horses have a large blind spot in there vision allowing them to look behind themselves
• Snakes can adjust there eyes for the night and the day. Depending on whether it is day or night depends on whether its eyes are sensitive to a certain set of wavelengths.*
• The mantis shrimp has evolved to have 12 types of photoreceptor; comparative to our 3. This gives it something called hyper-spectral colour; which I still don’t understand but it looks cool anyway.

Thanks for reading; I will post my sources. The first one is definitely worth looking at. J

*Though I looked up snakes further; some of the things different sites said opposed each other so it is hard to verify this point. However, I am fairly certain that snakes have “vision pits” which can detect heat. Personally I would be sceptical to start calling these “vision pits” a second pair of eyes though.

http://www.bitrebels.com/lifestyle/how-dogs-cats-other-animals-see-the-world-infographic/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperspectral_imaging

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rattlesnake#Sensory_organs

http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/01/14/animal-vision-color-detection-and-color-blindness/

http://askabiologist.asu.edu/colors-they-see

5 Thinking Points about Religion (Philosophy)

Try to take in the following points with an open mind; I am not trying to change people, I am just sharing some thinking points.

All I ask is that you think about what you believe in and why you believe in it.

1. Why do people spend so long considering what happens after life when we so readily accept that nothing happened before it? If you believe in re-incarnation then think about justifying why your previous life is relevant to this one; and what difference it makes if you cannot remember it. It seems irrational to think that after your life will be so spectacular when before it, it was so peacefully unspectacular.
2. Certain parts of Christianity believe that Animals do not have souls. If you believe that animals do not have souls you believe that they came to life in a different way than humans did. If you believed that Humans and animals evolved through Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection it would be illogical to say that at some point along the line animals lost their souls, or humans attained theirs. In order to continue believing animals don’t have souls you must disprove Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.
3. If I lived in an area of America which was strongly Christian, and I was bought up in a strongly Christian household, It would be likely that I would become a strong Christian myself. However, If I lived in a strongly Islamic part of India, and my parents were strongly Islamic, it would be likely that I would become Muslim. What difference does the geography of where we live on this world have on how correct our views are on the creation of our universe? Logically it has none whatsoever. So how can you tell if your religion is true compared to another if you have never truly questioned it yourself in comparison with other ideas?
4. If there are other planets within our universe which harbour intelligent life, which I personally feel is almost certain considering the vast amount of planets in a universe, every single planet and population would need to be individually contacted by a messenger in one way or another from each religion. This could be through “dreams”, “visions” or a real person like Jesus. Though this is possible; somehow I highly doubt that this is going to happen. Logically it makes sense to assume that other intelligent life-forms will come up with their own separate religions to our own. When we do eventually find another planet with intelligent life and interact with them; if they do not believe in an extremely similar religion to one of the religions on earth it is safe to say that even the most avid members of religions should question why there deity hasn't contacted them.
5. Personally I feel that a God who is perfect should save everyone no matter whether they believe in them or not. Believing in something isn't a judge of your character, of how well you life, or how much of a positive impact you have on the world around you; so why would a perfect God let good people face often torturous and horrific consequences? If I was a “Perfect” God I would let everyone in to “Heaven” and not judge them about what they did in life. If they led a bad life and had an evil mind on earth it wouldn't matter. “Heaven” is perfect so there would be no problems there. It seems to me that God isn't a very nice person at all if he does things like send good people to eternal damnation.

I do understand that this write up is directed more-so to Christianity than any other religion. This is not because I wanted it to be aimed at Christians, it was purely because I know more about Christianity than any other religion as we grow up in a Christian country.

Afterthoughts: It has come to my attention that point 2 was poorly worded. This has now been amended.

Rio De Janeiro Statue - Brazil