Dubstepforum.com

magma wrote:Surely someone could've developed a seedless melon by now.

I think it does exist.

Mehlovich wrote:

magma wrote:Surely someone could've developed a seedless melon by now.

I think it does exist.

I've just Googled it and it seems I live in a seed-filled technological backwater.

murky21 wrote:

magma wrote:

cityzen wrote:Also, magnolia is the worst colour to paint a room in your home. If you have ever chosen magnolia, you are a boring bastard and I fart in your general direction!

This. My whole flat is Magnolia and they won't let us change it. Fucking bastards.

Need more art.

you lot should be relatively grateful for just having intact walls, just had an entire walls worth of paint stripped off which is now half horrible dark brown, half dirty paint, walls around the skirting drilled up, floor taken up all thanks to me old mukka Dry Rot - all with no notice from builders or sheets layed doing this to all my vinyl tv decks ps3 xbox etc....!!!

Jesus! Brand new Gof Trad aswell!

cityzen wrote:If everything in existence is merely a representation of pure consciousness observing itself, that would explain why we can't comprehend the edge of the universe/an infinite universe.

The thing is, reality isn't just based on observations made with the our consciousness. You're consciousness plays a major role in the comprehension of the world around you, but what determines how you feel on the subject (reality, fantasy / happiness, dissapointment) is your subconscious associating the event or thought with past memorys. Then your unconscious brain evokes the release of pheromones to corolate mental emotion with physical feelings.

as a matter of fact we are beggining to understand the enormous structure of the universe at the largest scale. There are solar systems, which make up galaxies, which make up galaxy clusters held together my dark matter, and being ripped apart from the force of dark energy. Galaxy clusters make up super clusers (basically star clusters with instead of stars are made up of 1000's of galaxys) and all the super clusters are coalesced into a massive network which is what we know as the universe.

Redderious wrote:

cityzen wrote:If everything in existence is merely a representation of pure consciousness observing itself, that would explain why we can't comprehend the edge of the universe/an infinite universe.

The thing is, reality isn't just based on observations made with the our consciousness.

No, i'm saying reality itself is nothing more than consciousness. My consciousness, yours and their consciousness = one and the same thing



But for the sake of discussion, can you prove that reality isn't just based on observations made with our consciousness?

cityzen wrote:No, i'm saying reality itself is nothing more than consciousness. My consciousness, yours and their consciousness = one and the same thing



But for the sake of discussion, can you prove that reality isn't just based on observations made with our consciousness?

Feynman used to play around with the idea of there only being one electron in the entire universe (since every one we've ever observed is identical)... just at trillions of points in space all for a unique instant of 'time', thus producing the illusion of consciousness within our perceived universe... we're not just the same consciousness, we're the same material as well.

Given we still can't say for certain that's not true, I'd say leaving room for ideas like yours really doesn't present too much of a problem at this stage!

^^ Safe.
I'd also go so far as to say consciousness = material, material = consciousness. A single thing expressed in dualistic terms.
I'd love to be able to claim it's my idea but certain areas of ontology and eastern philosophy got there way before me.

cityzen wrote:No, i'm saying reality itself is nothing more than consciousness. My consciousness, yours and their consciousness = one and the same thing

But for the sake of discussion, can you prove that reality isn't just based on observations made with our consciousness?

Yes, one of the most basic examples and the common differences between two beings is religion. A person who holds deep religious beliefs will view the superior being/force as a subject of reality. To them, there god(s) are as real as the grass they walk on or the air they breath. This is where you sub-conscious comes into play. The average religious believer doesn't put their faith in a force due to occurances that have happened at one point in their life. A major cause of their worship is based on their upbringing. If as a child your surrounded by a definite belief, chances are that's what will become a reality to you later on in life. As for me i don't have a belief in a higher being causing the creation of time itself. So to me, these are just fairy tails used to keep society's morals in tune.

magma wrote:Feynman used to play around with the idea of there only being one electron in the entire universe (since every one we've ever observed is identical)... just at trillions of points in space all for a unique instant of 'time', thus producing the illusion of consciousness within our perceived universe... we're not just the same consciousness, we're the same material as well.

Given we still can't say for certain that's not true, I'd say leaving room for ideas like yours really doesn't present too much of a problem at this stage!

Very simple, yet an unbelievably complex theory you posted. I can see this as being something really challenging to wrap your head around. I dont believe all living things are made up of the 'same' materials, maybe down at the quantum level we're alike but chemically we are all differant from one another. The process of formation resembles one another but i really don't believe you can ever find an exact replica.

Redderious wrote:Very simple, yet an unbelievably complex theory you posted. I can see this as being something really challenging to wrap your head around. I dont believe all living things are made up of the 'same' materials, maybe down at the quantum level we're alike but chemically we are all differant from one another. The process of formation resembles one another but i really don't believe you can ever find an exact replica.

Indeed, that's why it's so fun.

If you break a LEGO house down into it's constituent blocks, you'll be left with a pile of bricks all identical (for the purpose of this example anyway, it's a fairly boring LEGO house!) which can then be fashioned into anything else... the bricks don't change because of the form they're built into, just like electrons don't change depending what sort of nucleus they're orbiting... if you could break time into small enough chunks, you could feasibly create an illusion of consciousness within a physical universe that may have only lasted a cosmic 'instant', but has felt like billions of years to everything 'in' it.

It's a bit of a silly idea, but it's a lovely way of showing how little we can prove about the universe at this stage... we have an awfully long way to go. Feynman was struggling with this in the middle of the last century and it's apparently still a bit of a poser for physicists.

Redderious wrote:

cityzen wrote:No, i'm saying reality itself is nothing more than consciousness. My consciousness, yours and their consciousness = one and the same thing

But for the sake of discussion, can you prove that reality isn't just based on observations made with our consciousness?

Yes, one of the most basic examples and the common differences between two beings is religion. A person who holds deep religious beliefs will view the superior being/force as a subject of reality. To them, there god(s) are as real as the grass they walk on or the air they breath. This is where you sub-conscious comes into play. The average religious believer doesn't put their faith in a force due to occurances that have happened at one point in their life. A major cause of their worship is based on their upbringing. If as a child your surrounded by a definite belief, chances are that's what will become a reality to you later on in life. As for me i don't have a belief in a higher being causing the creation of time itself. So to me, these are just fairy tails used to keep society's morals in tune.

When I say 'reality' I mean the universe and everything in it.
Do you understand what i'm saying now?
In the beginning there was nothing but pure consciousness (cosmic singularity). At the moment that consciousness reflected upon itself for the first time the big bang happened.
All things come from one. All things are one.

cityzen wrote:

Redderious wrote:

cityzen wrote:No, i'm saying reality itself is nothing more than consciousness. My consciousness, yours and their consciousness = one and the same thing

But for the sake of discussion, can you prove that reality isn't just based on observations made with our consciousness?

Yes, one of the most basic examples and the common differences between two beings is religion. A person who holds deep religious beliefs will view the superior being/force as a subject of reality. To them, there god(s) are as real as the grass they walk on or the air they breath. This is where you sub-conscious comes into play. The average religious believer doesn't put their faith in a force due to occurances that have happened at one point in their life. A major cause of their worship is based on their upbringing. If as a child your surrounded by a definite belief, chances are that's what will become a reality to you later on in life. As for me i don't have a belief in a higher being causing the creation of time itself. So to me, these are just fairy tails used to keep society's morals in tune.

When I say 'reality' I mean the universe and everything in it.
Do you understand what i'm saying now?
In the beginning there was nothing but pure consciousness (cosmic singularity). At the moment that consciousness reflected upon itself for the first time the big bang happened.
All things come from one. All things are one.

When you apply your theory to the creation of time and space i do understand what you're getting at. With that said i'll admit my defeat on this topic
But, something i don't believe in is the prequel to the 'big bang'. Although the laws of physics some how permit 'something' to be created out of 'nothing' i still have doubt. My view is the universe is stuck in a constant cycle of expansion and re-creation. I see no evidence that refutes the theory, but at the same time i see no evidence that supports it. What many physicists don't give second thoughts toward is the definiton of nothing. One thing i do know about the laws of physics is that no thing in the universe is perfect, not even gravity's hold on matter. I feel that this should apply to our view of nothing as well. If no one thing is perfect in our universe, why should nothing be a perfect form of absolute emptiness?

Magma - In your first post you stated that there being only one electron in our universe. I'm assuming you meant only one form of the electron, or do you believe that all electrons came from a single source of energy at the first points of creation? Really either do make sense. Question is if all electrons were formed from the same source, what do you believe came before the ball of pure energy which supposedly existed in a form much smaller than an atom? Do you believe it was a single electron, or all of the mass we see in our universe today, just compressed in to the smallest possible amount of space?

How come when the topic of climate change comes up no one mentions the hundreds of nuclear warheads we've blown up in the atmosphere?

dj2slo wrote:How come when the topic of climate change comes up no one mentions the hundreds of nuclear warheads we've blown up in the atmosphere?

That's because nuclear explosions aren't exactly harmful to the atmosphere. The most abundent byproduct of nuclear warheads is radiation. The sole purpose of the ozone layer is to catch radiation coming from the sun (UV rays). A nuclear bomb's massive explosion is caused by either nuclear fission or fusion. Fission works by taking an element with a heavy nucleas, adding radiation and splitting it into two smaller particles releasing excess energy. Fussion has a similair reaction, the process of releasing the excess energy is the opposite though. Fussion works by colliding two particles together (hydrogen for example) and causing them to fuse (two hydrogen atoms fuse to make helium), thus releasing all excess energy. If you take the atomic mass of one helium atom and subtract it by the mass of two hydrogen atoms youll get a negative number, that being the excess energy released.

Long story short, both fusion and fission release radiation after completed. Versus TNT which releases combustion bases byproducts.

If dinosaurs had survived and evolved, would human beings exist now?

Duffman wrote:If dinosaurs had survived and evolved, would human beings exist now?

Probably, to be honest, the larger dinosaurs would be just as dangerous as a heard of elephants, and the smaller dinonychus, and velociraptors, would have a similar threat to us as modern big cats. We would outcompete

dididub wrote:

Duffman wrote:If dinosaurs had survived and evolved, would human beings exist now?

Probably, to be honest, the larger dinosaurs would be just as dangerous as a heard of elephants, and the smaller dinonychus, and velociraptors, would have a similar threat to us as modern big cats. We would outcompete

Alternatively, we might be the slave race under a highly developed ancestor of the dinosaur.

Duffman wrote:If dinosaurs had survived and evolved, would human beings exist now?

All amimals evolve to better adapt to their enviroments. Dinosaurs were pretty basic creatures, and honestly i don't see how they could evolve in to a form of intelligent creatures, especially not humans. Then again you could of probably say the same thing about our ancestors.

Just awnser this question and you'll find out if it was possible: How could dinosaurs adapt to benifit more from their enviroment?

Redderious wrote:When you apply your theory to the creation of time and space i do understand what you're getting at. With that said i'll admit my defeat on this topic

Not really necessary to admit defeat when we're just talking about a theory.

Redderious wrote:My view is the universe is stuck in a constant cycle of expansion and re-creation.

I agree with this on a scientific and not (necessarily) a philosophical level.

Redderious wrote:If no one thing is perfect in our universe, why should nothing be a perfect form of absolute emptiness?

Well if no one thing is perfect, then perfectness is nothing more than a concept...

Redderious wrote:Magma - In your first post you stated that there being only one electron in our universe. I'm assuming you meant only one form of the electron, or do you believe that all electrons came from a single source of energy at the first points of creation?

I don't mean to answer for him, but I think he meant that the theory states that there is actually only one electron, and due to our perception of reality involving 'time' we perceive there to be more than one.... Something along those lines anyway.

dididub wrote:

Duffman wrote:If dinosaurs had survived and evolved, would human beings exist now?

Probably, to be honest, the larger dinosaurs would be just as dangerous as a heard of elephants, and the smaller dinonychus, and velociraptors, would have a similar threat to us as modern big cats. We would outcompete

But surely humans would be prey for dinosaurs as well if they both co-existed?

cityzen wrote:

Redderious wrote:If no one thing is perfect in our universe, why should nothing be a perfect form of absolute emptiness?

Well if no one thing is perfect, then perfectness is nothing more than a concept...?

Your'e right, it is just a concept. But when applying the word to physics and the laws of nature, nothing reaches perfection. I'm not quite saying that whenever you say something appears to be perfect you would be lying. But it's definition is very misunderstood by many.

cityzen wrote:

Redderious wrote:Magma - In your first post you stated that there being only one electron in our universe. I'm assuming you meant only one form of the electron, or do you believe that all electrons came from a single source of energy at the first points of creation?

I don't mean to answer for him, but I think he meant that the theory states that there is actually only one electron, and due to our perception of reality involving 'time' we perceive there to be more than one.... Something along those lines anyway.

Not saying that wouldn't be possible, it's just extreamly tough to grasp. My mind simply doesn't have the ability to completely understand. Then again if someone did, they'd be a monster at thinking outside the box. This goes along with the theory i mentioned earlier about something being created from nothing in terms of difficulty of comprehension.