[ Post made via Android ]
Imagine you have a string one light year long. You hold on to one end and the other is attached to something a light year away, so the string is taut. If you were to pluck the string near the source where it's attached, it would take a while to detect the waves and reverberations on the other side (more than a year since it's a light year away), but what if a giant sword were to cut the string near the point of origin at the other side from where you are holding it?
I believe that long before you can see the sword cut the string (with a giant telescope) you would feel the tension in the string loosen. It would be instantaneous even a light year away, long before you see it cut. What that means is that the knowledge that the string is cut is instantaneous and faster than the speed of light.
The fact that it is cut, a light year away, effects the atoms in the brain of the human observer in an instant, faster than light. (It changes our thoughts from "La-di-da" to "Whoa, the string is loose now!") (Spooky action at a distance?) Cause and effect can be faster than the speed of light in this instance. This could be one light year, two, or infinity and it should still work.
I don't know if I explained it well enough, but it's something that still plagues my mind and I wonder what the ramifications of it could mean. I hit a brick wall with this one, so I felt like sharing it. Sometimes that alone unlocks my own mental block.
The British physicist James Clerk Maxwell derived from his electromagnetism equations a very important conclusion: that electromagnetic waves of all frequencies travel through space at the same fixed speed - the speed of light, which is, 186,000 miles per second. (To give everyone an idea of what we are talking about here.) I think it is also worth mentioning that, although special relativity forbids superluminal velocity, general relativity allows it. So, does the solution to Hagart's thought experiment lie in the general relativity realm - because the universe is, after all, as one? This seems as mind-boggling as the relationship between the quantum and the classical, and most likely relevant, too.
I think this link will provide some food for thought:
I'm inclined to think that, the system of united particles (the string), would propagate the process seemingly faster than the speed of light, but it is not really carrying information, it is merely a relative effect. What I mean by this is that, although the chain reaction is instant, it is not violating any laws. If you imagine the universe as a bowl full of marbles leaning against one another, the seemingly superluminal chain reaction is what you observe to happen to all the marbles once one of them is removed. The whole system is affected even though no real information is being carried. The marbles have a tendency to fill any gaps due to gravity. Quantum entanglement is something along these lines according to Brian Cox's analogies for the layman, and seems to me the best way to answer to the EPR paradox.
The observation of the event a light-year away, such as the cutting of the string, relies on something which is separate from the consequences of the cutting itself. The observation relies on photons travelling through space, which, needless to say, it is NOT a game of dominoes that have congruent properties such as mass and are already making close contact, and whose stretch goes from the event to be observed to the observer. No, no, no.
For the observation to occur, it takes longer, it takes time, because something is travelling through the fabric of space, and the maximum speed allowed in this fabric is not enough to beat the chain reaction. The superluminal effect of cutting the string, in this theory, would be an illusion. Nothing is really travelling, if it were, it would be travelling at 10,000 times the speed of light and this is impossible. (It would violate the laws of physics of this universe and quite possibly allow time travel.) If you were to pluck the string in the middle, something would be felt at both ends.
But there is an implication that I will admit. How long does it take for vibrations to be felt if the effect travels at the speed of sound (assuming the string has enough elasticity)? If we take this into account, the observation is experienced first because light is faster. Lastly, I would like to point out that the Casimir effect is only measurable when the distance between objects is extremely small, so, the force drops with distance. whether this is relevant to the physics involved in the thought experiment or not, I'm not sure, but, it seems to me that understanding the role of distance (one light-year) is one of the keys to solving the riddle.
HAGART wrote:"I think therefore I am". -Descart.
If you stripped away your clothes, your limbs, your guts, your body and were just a brain in a jar you would still exist. Kept alive and thinking (with the proper oxygenated fluid), you would still think, "I am".
There would still be the construct of "you". There would be a perception of "yourself" fabricated by that grey blob we call a 'brain'.
If you imagine what it's like to be a consciousness in a jar, what do you think, or imagine it would be?
(When we lucid dream, or even have normal dreams, aren't we all just pure thought without a body?)
No, you would be dead and the remainder would just be a brain in a jar. The brain for emotional experience up the glands. Without them it would lose the ability not only to feel emotion; but also the ability to transform its character. It's personality would be set forever and might even fade over time, so that it would be a brain with just awareness and no will. Trans-humanism is just a pipe dream of detranged elites - just like alchemy and living forever or the fountain of youth. Hopefully we can stop them and mankind will not become the cybermen or Daleks
And there is only one thing we say to death "not today"
- Syrio Forel
Perhaps 'brain in a jar' won't technically work, and human cyborgs can be evil, so I'm against that,
but think about this:
Aren't we all just brains in a jar?
The jar is not glass; It's our skull.
(There's a remake of Robocop, and I wonder if they get deep and existential in that version, or just blow stuff up hollywood style. Because you could get deep with the Robocop scenario .) (They probably just blow stuff up.... )
But think about this:
How can an eyeball see itself?
How can we perceive ourselves fully, internally in a lucid dream when perception is just the observer, trying to witness and scrutinize the observer itself?
I already know that a mirror can solve the eyeball dilemma because it's physical and literal. But the other.... that's a whole new ball game...
(I'll bring a mop to sop up the brain matter!)
[ Post made via Android ]
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests