| Author | Message | ||
     Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 5748 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
Ela anedi telidu kani avutundi ani telusu  Mind-reading chesevallu untaru - kinda Nisarga example icharu chudandi... Some time back they were trying to make a videogame with a controller that you strap to your forehead and it can sense your intent from the brain waves...
That was my point too - maybe the visions are not past memory but just different kind of input Ma intlo hereditary ability to go into trance/samadhi states undi on one side of the family - its pretty cool to listen to their out of body experiences
Annitiki soul untundi anede kada mana philosophy with human birth being at the pinnacle So maybe they ended up in the dog-eat-dog politicians  aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Comedian Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 1915 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 75.139.43.192 Rating: N/A |
i always wondered, are there only five physical senses that our brain receives data from. i read some where that scientists now believe that space is filled with particles that travel through us, and make most of the space. how many of such unknown carriers could influence our mind and thoughts? the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Gandhiguevara Junior Artist Username: Gandhiguevara Post Number: 307 Registered: 10-2009 Posted From: 76.109.140.171 Rating: N/A |
a non-conscious absorption of information - subliminial information transfer from other non sense-organ perceivable sources - like wireless transmission... // Akkaaa...idelaa sambhavam...Non-conscious(nenidi un-conscious term laa teesukuntunnaa)...information transfer anedi veelu kaadu...oka vela technical gaa Asynchronus mode lo transfer ante daaniki mana sub-consciuos ane Freud coined term vaadutunnaam...then also...mee terminlogy lo non sense-organ perceivable sources - like wireless transmission anedie elaa veelavutundi... b. transferred by a non-genetic vehicle like consciousness/soul on the presumption that this is an entity separate from the physical/genetic structure ?// Sare...manakanna mundu dianosaurs rajyam elaayi anna oka vadana vundi kadaa...vaati genes through consciousness/soul ekkadiki velli vuntaayi... Meeru ikkada genes(and so called soul transfer from birt to birth) anedi human beings ki matrame parimitam antaarani anukonu.... | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 5745 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 67.10.134.234 Rating: N/A |
BUMP for Nisarga - just to prevent the thread from archiving aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 5731 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
As in you've had similar experiences ? Or just the definition of the experience? aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Bushu Junior Artist Username: Bushu Post Number: 346 Registered: 04-2009 Posted From: 12.30.230.138 Rating: N/A |
deja vu | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 5726 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
Eeroju there is some data in yuor memory (conscious or subconscious) I am just looking at possible means it got there into your hard-drive. 1.You wrote it there - thru current life experiences/perceptions 2.It pre-existed at birth Now option 2 ki 2 possibilities chusanu a. genetic b. transferred by a non-genetic vehicle like consciousness/soul on the presumption that this is an entity separate from the physical/genetic structure ? It just struck me that I left out is the third possible mechanism of input into the hard-drive ... a non-conscious absorption of information - subliminial information transfer from other non sense-organ perceivable sources - like wireless transmission...  aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Sachin Moderator Username: Sachin Post Number: 11211 Registered: 04-2008 Rating: N/A |
 | ||
| Gandhiguevara Junior Artist Username: Gandhiguevara Post Number: 304 Registered: 10-2009 Posted From: 12.6.188.130 Rating: N/A |
ade kada genes ante// Genes concept ardham ayyindannay...rebirth concept ye ardam kalaaa | ||
| Vjavasi Junior Artist Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 92 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 192.127.94.7 Rating: N/A |
soul anedhi virus lo kooda vuntundhi antara? | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12310 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
ade kada genes ante child prodigies may be bad examples there are numerous examples where kids have strong memories. I read about a child who spoke morse code when he was a few months old. One of their neighbors figured out that the baby was not making incoherent sounds, but he was talking in morse code. The baby was saying I was a sailor based in XXXX port. Please take me back to my ship !!!! . Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Gandhiguevara Junior Artist Username: Gandhiguevara Post Number: 300 Registered: 10-2009 Posted From: 12.6.188.130 Rating: N/A |
'how do you explain people born with extraordinary talents? eg: Child prodigies' Oke factory lo tayaaraina cars lo kudaaa konni extra ordinary performance istaay...alaage child prodigies brain arrangement koncham better gaa vuntundemo... | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 5723 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
Punarjanma ante cinemallo chupinchinattu pata kakshalu settle type lo uhinchukunnara emiti ? Soul progression thru multiple lives untundi anedi mana philosophy kada anduke option 2 is possible ani antunna ante aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12309 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
how do you explain people born with extraordinary talents? eg: Child prodigies Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Gandhiguevara Junior Artist Username: Gandhiguevara Post Number: 292 Registered: 10-2009 Posted From: 12.6.188.130 Rating: N/A |
1. It is genetic - passed down in the genes to prewire the mind with some images/data...that causes repeatable hallucinations // Understandable.... 2. It is memory passed thru the "soul" from a time prior to birth ... // akkaa...idi naa school kaadu...nenu paripotunnaaaa | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 5721 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
Can't go into details - but I will keep it generic ... konni visions/dreams vastayi - avvi eppudu vinaledu, chudaledu, chadavaledu ... never even explored my thought on those lines... so the normal human tendency is " I must be imagining it " and forget about it ...and 99 % of the time we are right about that.. But then, later you get to know of someone/ some document describing the exact same imagery/sequence of the 1% - and you start wondering - it cannot be my imagination if someone else saw the same thing or in current or past time... If my subconscious is bubbling it up now, when and how did it get into my subconscious ? Two possible explanataions - 1. It is genetic - passed down in the genes to prewire the mind with some images/data...that causes repeatable hallucinations 2. It is memory passed thru the "soul" from a time prior to birth ... At this point I think both are equally plausible explanations If consciousnees is socially transmittted meme, how does that explain the above, was my question Ofcourse the third explanation could simply be that I see something , and then selective memory makes me match it up to what I read or someone tells me I am not ruling that out either aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12304 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
My point is, their separateness is an illusion . Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Gandhiguevara Junior Artist Username: Gandhiguevara Post Number: 285 Registered: 10-2009 Posted From: 76.98.4.162 Rating: N/A |
'how do memories outside current life experience /previous birth happen ??...' Akka...every thing we know is perceptive....including God... inka ...outside current life experince visyaniki vasthe...adi kudaa manam chadivindi...manam choosedi(as bystanders)... Previous birth...what are you talking about??? | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 5720 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 67.10.134.234 Rating: N/A |
Read half of the first but was too drained after a 12 hour workday to finish  If consciousness is a socially transmitted meme - how do memories outside current life experience /previous birth happen ?? The second one is an easy read - nothing surprising but a confirmation of some thoughts especially on intuition, evolving consciousness etc
Curous why you think they can solve anything , what are you trying to solve ? You lost me there aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 5719 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 67.10.134.234 Rating: N/A |
Oka anecdote gurtu vachindi - ma peddodini tittanu emiti ala annam kinda postunnavu , sarigga tinu ani... Promptly vadu oka spiel ichadu " Mom, don't worry, this is all an illusion, the food the spill etc..none of this exists " Immediately the younger one askes his brother " How do you know you exist ?" If we are to use the analogy of us being God's dream - we observe each other so why not in a level down in our own dreams the other characters abserve each other ? aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12237 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
Transitive consciousness?  back to topic 1. When you stop observing, the object will cease to exist! Not that it doesn't matter anymore. It was never there. 2. Imagine you are dreaming about 2 people. You can observe both of them. Can they observe each other? Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 5704 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
Schizophrenia 
Concur with this on a philosophical level - life exists as long as that separation is there
Agree with that too ... but is that perceived order also due to the assumptional bounds albeit at a higher order ? Is there any way to define the universe as random or deterministic at all ?
Has to be I think - creativity has a good dose of randomness to it - so does impulsiveness - because the mind/brain prefers structure anyday Thanks for the links - Will read them tonight
Absolutely - I have never seen any of the philosophis as antagonistic to the others - its just a different perspective leading to the same end And you are right the idea of a Randomly acting God is not very confidence-building aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 240 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 135.245.168.35 Rating: N/A |
The otherway round is also true or probably more true -- things are random but within certain bounds. things at microscopic level seem random but the range of randomness is very much finite. any radom event does seem assume a certain state randomly but the total number of states does seem finite. so the radomness is realized within that scale. The higher level reality does seem to show up patterns or order(may be until it leaks the fundamental reality ..there might be leaky abstractions ). it seems that many people believe that things can be explained(not controlled though ) if the consciousness is accepted as the fundamental reality. it is simple and obvious to assume it is the consciousness that is random or responsible for randomness. check this link:http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/1995/GOERTZEL.html -- old one but seems good. one more good perspective on reality -- objective spiritualism by Paul P. Budnik -- http://mtnmath.com/expt72h/expt72h.html To me seems the above two perspectives are similar and I doubt if they could really solve anything more than materialism. No sound popular advocates of materialists seem found now ( definitely there will be but not popular). Dennet seems to uphold freewill but his Friend Douglas Hofstadter seems to maintain that freewill is illusion. materialists/rationalists need not be antagonists of randomness. as long as randomness is not attributed to social God I am OK. randomness is a blow to believers too... may be more than believers . | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 239 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 135.245.168.35 Rating: N/A |
What does it really smean!? everything(physical object for instance) is expressed or experienced in the mind/consciousness of conscious beings(lets say observer). it does not matter whether the object itself experiences itself from the perspective of observer. once the observer is off the object( the observer is no more conscious of the object) the obejcts existence does not matter to the observer( consciously). the physical traits of the observed might depend the the structure of experncing mechanism.for different experiencing structures the object may appear deferently. is it in that sense observer is the observed or observed is the observer? however,is the experience of an object(observed) there without the observed? if observer is observed which one is primary. can the observer create his own observed? when two observer are observing an object, are the two observers the single observerd and hence observer1 = observer2 !? separation is the necessary condition of consciussness. | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 5696 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 67.10.134.234 Rating: N/A |
I am thinking randomness is the cause ...
No, things can be deterministic but within certain bounds aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12185 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
It is Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Ishan Junior Artist Username: Ishan Post Number: 715 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 128.249.106.234 Rating: N/A |
Important question is what generates randomness? All generalizations have exceptions, including this one | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 5694 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
Yep, but I liked this even better as mentioned in my first post "The present is therefore real and distinct from an imagined future and a recorded past," aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 5691 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
Thread divert avutundi emo - serious ga quantum physics matladutunnaru, Heisenberg/Schroedinger/Godel - but adi na quote and I was thinking about the many layers/lokas in Srimad Bhagavatam or the ten sephirot in the Kabbalah as levels of perceivable reality aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12175 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
Yes. Observer is the observed One more remarkable point in the article is "Randomness generates everything," says Cahill. "It even creates the sensation of the 'present', which is so conspicuously absent from today's physics." Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Ishan Junior Artist Username: Ishan Post Number: 714 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 128.249.107.38 Rating: N/A |
Thats the problem isn't it...you simply cant do that because we cant control time. So, do you think that there is no chance of predicting the "n" despite you know all the factors regulating the excited electron. Or do you think that there is no cause for that effect? Is there no chance that future physicists can find that cause and determine "n"? I wouldn't say that...because even if you can not replicate the experiments exactly, you can determine the outcome if you know the exact changes that occur over time. The limitation here is the knowledge. Randomness can not escape cause and effect. All generalizations have exceptions, including this one | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 5689 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
What about convergence of the two , where the observer is the observed ... From the initial post : "The Universe is rich enough to be selfreferencing{for instance, I'm aware of myself." } aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12163 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
i think probability is irrelavant in this case Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Der_schuler Side Hero Username: Der_schuler Post Number: 2306 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 198.135.110.2 Rating: N/A |
The implication is the following...if consciousness were indeed a Quantum classical system, no matter how much statistical information that you can derive from the past regarding its composition, you can't predict its composition in the next state..... It gets murkier if time is woven together with space.....see this analogy.... If u are on a sphere....and you have all the information pertaining to the sphere but the fact that it might at random times puncture itself at a random place. You start of at a point and start making a random walk on its surface, what is the chance that you will be at the same point as you started???? The answer happens so that it is both 1 and 0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | ||
| Der_schuler Side Hero Username: Der_schuler Post Number: 2304 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 198.135.110.2 Rating: N/A |
Atomic isotopes are quantum dynamical systems...think of the analogy..when a classical Schroedinger entity ( that which satisfies the Schroedinger PDE) is excited say an electron to a higher energy state, there are no laws of physics that can depict where would its next free energy minimizing state will be!!!! That is if we are at a Bohr level n=5 and p=2 for an helium atom, the next occupancy only guarantees that the level will be < 5(minimising its free energy) but there is no law of physics that depicts what the next "n" will be. That is the reason why when any gas is excited inside a bubble chamber, the radiation it emits, is a Distribution based on the temperature but never a single wavelength radiation!!!!!!!! These are INTRINSICALLY RANDOM SYSTEMS. No matter how much information that you have pertaining to how they interact with the environment, u cant depict their next state...even so in complete isolation!!!!!! | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12162 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
What is the implication of this deduction? . Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12160 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
meaning not random because of lack of precision? Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Der_schuler Side Hero Username: Der_schuler Post Number: 2302 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 198.135.110.2 Rating: N/A |
Atomic isotopes are quantum dynamical systems...think of the analogy..when a classical Schroedinger entity ( that which satisfies the Schroedinger PDE) is excited say an electron to a higher energy state, there are no laws of physics that can depict where would its next free energy minimizing state will be!!!! That is if we are at a Bohr level n=5 and p=2 for an helium atom, the next occupancy only guarantees that the level will be < 5(minimising its free energy) but there is no law of physics that depicts what the next "n" will be. That is the reason why when any gas is excited inside a bubble chamber, the radiation it emits, is a Distribution based on the temperature but never a single wavelength radiation!!!!!!!! These are INTRINSICALLY RANDOM SYSTEMS. No matter how much information that you have pertaining to how they interact with the environment, u cant depict their next state...even so in complete isolation!!!!!! | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12157 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
What convinced Godel that we can NEVER explain phenomenon. May be its matter of time. Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12156 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
Can you please put it in even more layman's terms? Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Der_schuler Side Hero Username: Der_schuler Post Number: 2300 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 198.135.110.2 Rating: N/A |
U have used the phrase "WITH ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING THE SAME". If you can replicate all the control variables of the previous time, Coin tossing becomes a determinstic problem governed purely by the newtonian laws of physics. But if u take a radio isotope as an example, even if the Universe is reset back to the state where it was before, it wont repeat its decay pattern. That is the difference between intrinsic randomness and extrinsic randomness. Quantum systems are intrinsically random and that is the reason why consciousness will be always Quantum superposed!!!!!!!!! | ||
| Der_schuler Side Hero Username: Der_schuler Post Number: 2299 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 198.135.110.2 Rating: N/A |
Large scale order can only be talked about in a average sense and as it turns out, all systems of consciousness are Quantum computable and have negative Lyapunov constants making them extremely unstable under noise. Heisenberg's thesis was a masterpiece of insight marrying the disparate branches of Quantum physics with that of Number theory which begot the whole science of Randomness. Even chaitin's closure as mentioned in the article is only a statistical bound. Refer to " A New Kind Of Science" by Stephen WOlfram | ||
| Chantodu Side Hero Username: Chantodu Post Number: 7309 Registered: 07-2007 Posted From: 12.34.246.78 Rating: N/A |
some philosophical ideas of multiple dimensions of reality etc ****** tamullu englis depth nil.. matter ento telugu lo ettandi plz | ||
| Maverick Hero Username: Maverick Post Number: 10531 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 192.146.101.24 Rating: N/A |
There used to be a belief or a feeling that If you toss a coin say that heads is up, the result will be heads and vice versa..idi enta varaku nijam? before tossing, while its on ur fingers if u have heads facing sky result is heads..?? 10k post : why do u want to do pmp? | ||
| Der_schuler Side Hero Username: Der_schuler Post Number: 2298 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 198.135.110.2 Rating: N/A |
Untrue. Per the LLN ( both in its strong and weak form) only ensure point wise convergence at the best..i.e convergence in probability to as close to the mean as possible but the bracket of convergence is still a set of measure Infinity. That is the whole problem with the theories of computation that we have, no matter how closely we converge onto a mean, the probability that average of Random Variables over a filtration to that of an absolute mean ins Zero since it is a point mass and we dont have a means to represent rational numbers exactly. To put in a more layman's perspective, mining for convergence using a computational setting will never approach reality!!!!!!! exactly what heisenberg mentioned in his undertainity and Godel proved in his incompleteness theorem. The mathematics we have has no intrinsic capacity to DETERMINISTICALLY say that this is reality | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12154 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
ohh....got your point if we toss with similar machines at the same time, we can argues it is not the same space so nothing can ever be deterministic ee trick teleeka mashtaaru........ Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Ishan Junior Artist Username: Ishan Post Number: 713 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 128.249.107.38 Rating: N/A |
Lets say you tossed a coin today at 12:17:01. If you repeat the experiment, with all the other factors same, the results will differ because you are tossing the coin at different time point, say 12:17:02. That means you are 1 second older. In that one second, some physiological or psychological changes in your body/mind might change your ability of tossing the coin in exactly the same manner. You might use a machine to toss a coin, but still the machine is also one second older, even though machines wont go bad as fast as our bodies. All generalizations have exceptions, including this one | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12153 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
 Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Maverick Hero Username: Maverick Post Number: 10529 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 192.146.101.24 Rating: N/A |
Ask how can a coin affect the coin tossing experiment..sholay lo veeru laa same coin ettukoni experiment seste with out checking the coin results telatanki jeevita kalam saripodu 10k post : why do u want to do pmp? | ||
| Lovetilludie Side Hero Username: Lovetilludie Post Number: 4248 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 117.200.3.142 Rating: N/A |
 Empty vessels make much noise | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12149 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
how can time affect coin tossing experiment? . Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Elcaminocapastrino Hero Username: Elcaminocapastrino Post Number: 17302 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 208.88.0.16 Rating: |
I think randomness and microscopic theory has an expansive relation to the obligation that einstein had shared with newtons mistress madam cury.....In one of those lonely afternoons in the sun drenched locales of tuscany madam cury was making an indian curry for her lover newton.....einstein who has hopelessly fallen for the charms of cury but who has to suppress his wave of emotions for her in fear of losing his then companion sarijini naidu was staying in a motel next to where cury n newton were located and was observing their intimate innovations using a binoculars invented by JP Lemiere..... While he was secretly pursuing his forbidden love a butterfly flew across his binoculars and then it drifted all the way to the shore and it rested on the shoulders of madam cury.....shocked by this unsuspecting visitor madam cury took her vision out of the curry and in that process accidentally she dumped a whole comtainer of the salt invented by captain cook in that curry....she then showed the butterfly away and she called up on newton to taste the scrumptuos indian curry she made so painstakingly for him on a stove ignited with plutonium.... Newton was on a apple tree at that time trying to surprise his love cury with a bunch of yummy ripen apples so that she can make an apple curry for their dinner....when cury didnt here from newton she took a little bit of curry in a small tea spoon and went in search of newton and she found him hanging on an apple tree....So she called up on him to taste the curry and he took the spoon gave a little peck on curys cheek and bought that curry in contact with his tongue to savor that ...... the moment it hit his mouth he felt like he drank 2 gallons of sea water....shocked by this event he dropped the apples he was holding and they hit the ground....and then he saw that and thus evolved the Law of Gravity.....Einstein while observing all this realized that it was a butterfly which caused this invention and thus evolved the theory "butterfky effect" which he passed on to his great grandson ashton kutcher who then makes a movie based of that theory.....So einsten shares all these events with sarojini naidu like how microscopic n trivial things like a butterly and chicken and curry and salt have randomly came together to the discovery of law of gravity...which was a huge deal.....and sarojini shared this with Gulzar and he added this theory to his song aane wala pal jaane wala hain in which he says "ek baar waqt se...lamha gira kahin..." it was time which is microscopic which will create a macroscopic moment which will stay with you forver....and based on that song amartya sen declared "time is real and it is moment that dertmine its impact ...." and for this he got a nobel..... "randomness .... a reality show"....a book by elcamino based on historical events hitting the shelfs this winter.... | ||
| Ishan Junior Artist Username: Ishan Post Number: 712 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 128.249.106.234 Rating: N/A |
I would bet on this...because even if you isolate the test and use exactly same experimental conditions, the experiment becomes time-sensitive in the sense that the same experimenter is now a bit older compared to the previous experiment and the physiological conditions might affect the outcome...may not be profoundly, but at least to an extent. The fundamental randomness is caused by time, I think. All generalizations have exceptions, including this one | ||
| Jp_rocks Comedian Username: Jp_rocks Post Number: 1905 Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 167.83.101.22 Rating: N/A |
 | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 238 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 135.245.8.2 Rating: N/A |
hmmmm ...the experiment needs to be performed in isolated conditions ( if at all that is possible). if the things are still unpredictable ( I would think its possible) there might be something fundamentally random or there are non local affects or the test env is not isolated completely | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 236 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 135.245.8.2 Rating: N/A |
i guess the randomness gets nullified or order arises when large number of fundamental entities are involved. | ||
| Ishan Junior Artist Username: Ishan Post Number: 711 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 128.249.107.38 Rating: N/A |
Chaos theory...extremely sensitive to the initial conditions...butterfly effect...I am more inclined towards determinist's perspective here...you control initial conditions, you will get see same result...however, I think its almost impossible in practice to replicate the conditions exactly. All generalizations have exceptions, including this one | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12148 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
lunch time...will be back Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12147 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
This always bothered me. When macroscopic things are made up of microscopic things, how can macroscopic things be real and deterministic? Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 235 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 123.237.222.23 Rating: N/A |
it think it's not non-real, its real but random. things at microscopic level are random. But macroscopic phenomena is by far deterministic( may not be completely) and are already after wave function collapse. observer need not be a sentient being. may be the Observed is indefinite for the observer until he observes. i think its more of a philosophical question. | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Comedian Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 1879 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 63.161.147.10 Rating: N/A |
freewill - i think philosophically this word does not have a meaning, its more of a misnomer. I think the word is used to express the freedom of chosing something at will, without having to tied down by a law or rule posed by society. the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 5688 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
Depends on the observer's perception and definition of boundaries... What if object A is connected to B and to multiple other things... Is AB a aseparate entity or the whole hub-spoke relationship of everything connected to A an entity or is the whole network an entity ? Did that make sense ? aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 234 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 123.237.222.23 Rating: N/A |
if two things have special connection obviating the locality between them are they considered separate things !? | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12146 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
Nice bethar According to Quantum physics, nothing is real. Everything is random. Once you observe, it becomes reality Observed doesnt exist unless there is an observer So, the words free and will can not go hand in hand Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 233 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 123.237.222.23 Rating: N/A |
was thinking in similar lines | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 5687 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
Have meetings all day - will read in the evening - continue the discussion please aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12144 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
 are you saying by intending something, you are reducing your freedom? If you are thinking what I am thinking, your statement is  Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 5685 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
Cool - that's what I was thinking too when I read that frst level of reality bit. Also, I think the sand analogy just validated what I was saying in the nastika thread
Is causality a need for the connections ? Can they not be random ? And then do this connections have a lifespan ? Not sure what you meant by unitary or individual aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 232 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 123.237.222.23 Rating: N/A |
I mean the freewill might exist because the underlying process is random. freewill cannot be a will if it is free, it cannot be free if it can be willed . | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 231 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 123.237.222.23 Rating: N/A |
what about this guy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Slyusarchuk? * he was able to correctly spell out the number of mobile phone of a person based on reading the person's thoughts * he had demonstrated driving a car throughout a complex route with his eyes blinded, based on reading the thoughts (visual perception) of another person inside the car * he hypnotized a man so he did not feel any pain when taking a glass of boiling water right from the heating fire. The camera showed man's hand after that. It was all white because of burns. They said it would take a few weeks for it to heal. Mr. Slyusarchuk also hypnotized that man to feel no pain in the burnt hand until it fully recovers * he told a person to read mentally a few random sentences from a random book. Then he was able to find out from that person’s thoughts which sentences did he/she read and on which page of the book Idi maree wonder world magazine chadivinattu undi. | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12139 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
Nisarga bedhar...this is contradictory to Randomness theory. If freewill can also be explained scientifically, nothing can be random. Only unpredictability due to lack of precision Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 230 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 123.237.222.23 Rating: N/A |
the image regeneration software must be as complex as the mental representation of the image !? | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 229 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 123.237.222.23 Rating: N/A |
good. thx. h r u? | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12138 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
i never knew that. I thought it was impossible to represents thought in 3d space. Leave alone 2 d. Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 228 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 123.237.222.23 Rating: N/A |
there may be some physical (electro-chemical) activity in the brain just before any cognitive experience in the mind. this was evident in some experiments as I read. so there might be some physical mechanism that is responsible for freewill!! if you read that physical representation somehow you may be able to guess(compute rather) what one thinks! how is HMI software possible! there are claims that it was possible to take images of objects in the mind. this looks far-fetched but not impossible. | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12135 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
A random truth has no explanation, it just is. This was recognised in the 17th century by the German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz. Leibniz believed that reality was built from things he called monads, which owed their existence solely to their relations with each other. This picture languished in the backwaters of science because it was hugely difficult to turn into a recipe for calculating things, unlike Newton's mechanics Newtonian mechanics will put you in Maya because it corroborates your illusion of reality  Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Bhikhu Side Hero Username: Bhikhu Post Number: 4498 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 148.129.71.53 Rating: N/A |
Nisarga dora h r u | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12134 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/pc/random_reality.ht ml Link to original article . Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Maverick Hero Username: Maverick Post Number: 10502 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 192.146.101.24 Rating: N/A |
Life in any form...is it a series of Unpredictable events or a series of Random events? 10k post : why do u want to do pmp? | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12132 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
Can we ever achieve 100% precision? Mass and energy are interchangeable at high velocities. According to Heisenberg's uncertainity principle, we may never be precise If we accept that randomness is fundamental, that will be huuuuuge blow to physics Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Cocanada Hero Username: Cocanada Post Number: 12131 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 136.181.195.4 Rating: N/A |
I if we do the experiment in vaccuum and high precision(which may not 100% precise) , I think we will get the same result Tell me one thing. If I ask you to come up with a random number, I will not be able to guess what it is. YOU can be random because you have freewill. Coin, air, Random number generating algorithms do not have freewill. They are random because we do not know the process and initial conditions "It would be insane to do the same thing again and again and expect a different results" - Einstein . Try try try .... you will succeed | ||
| Mrhyderabad Side Hero Username: Mrhyderabad Post Number: 3822 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 98.221.83.14 Rating: N/A |
malli shuru chesaaraa?  baaga discuss chesi 2012 lopu edo okati telchandi... If god doesn't like the way I live, let him tell me, not you | ||
| Joey Junior Artist Username: Joey Post Number: 107 Registered: 10-2009 Posted From: 198.28.69.5 Rating: N/A |
 how u doin? | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 227 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 135.245.168.35 Rating: N/A |
hmmmmm..... may be...not sure....need to think...would the causality exist at that level...are such connected entities individual or the unitary !! | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 226 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 135.245.168.33 Rating: N/A |
I would go with this: Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard -- ( Wikipedia). Unpredictability is an essential trait of randomness. all the random events must be unpredictable.however, unpredictability might be due to the lack of knowledge enough to recognize/compute the underlying hidden pattern/method. I think it is difficult to prove if an event or process is truly random. outcome of the event tossing a coin seems predictable if we know the torque applied, air resistance and all the other obvious parameters involved. or the experimental env is completely isolated ...but I would get what can potentially be random in this process, I would , think is the exact amount of torque applied-- i would guess it cannot be fixed to the exact amount every time. there is something at random at more fundamental level. | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 5678 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 67.10.134.234 Rating: N/A |
ESP & inter soul connections explained ???
Love it
Sounds familiar and similar to some philosophical ideas of multiple dimensions of reality etc aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Ishan Junior Artist Username: Ishan Post Number: 708 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 128.249.106.234 Rating: N/A |
Nisarga, Is randomness unpredictability? whats your opinion? All generalizations have exceptions, including this one | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 225 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 123.237.222.23 Rating: N/A |
RANDOM REALITY Marcus Chown Published in New Scientist, February 26, No.2227 pp 24-28, 2000 There is more to reality than meets the eye. Marcus Chown enters a bizarre world where space self-assembles itself out of a sea of randomness. ============================================================ == Space and the material world could be created out of nothing but noise. That's the startling conclusion of a new theory that attempts to explain the stu® of reality, as Marcus Chown reports. If you could lift a corner of the veil that shrouds reality, what would you see beneath? Nothing but randomness, say two Australian physicists. According to Reginald Cahill and Christopher Klinger of Flinders University in Adelaide, space and time and all the objects around us are no more than the froth on a deep sea of randomness. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that randomness is a part of the Universe. After all, physicists tell us that empty space is a swirling chaos of virtual particles. And randomness comes into play in quantum theory{when a particle such as an electron is observed, its properties are randomly selected from a set of alternatives predicted by the equations. But Cahill and Klinger believe that this hints at a much deeper randomness. "Far from being merely associated with quantum measurements, this randomness is at the very heart of reality," says Cahill. If they are right, they have created the most fundamental of all physical theories, and its implications are staggering. "Randomness generates everything," says Cahill. "It even creates the sensation of the 'present', which is so conspicuously absent from today's physics." Their evidence comes from a surprising quarter{pure mathematics. In 1930, the Austrian-born logician Kurt GÄodel stunned the mathematical world with the publication of his incompleteness theorem. It applied to formal systems{sets of assumptions and the statements that can be deduced from those assumptions by the rules of logic. For example, the Greeks developed their geometry using a few axioms, such as the idea that there is only one straight line through any pair of points. It seemed that a clever enough mathematician could prove any theorem true or false by reasoning from axioms. But GÄodel proved that, for most sets of axioms, there are true theorems that cannot be deduced.In other words, most mathematical truths can never be proved. This bombshell could easily have sent shock waves far beyond mathematics. Physics, after all,is couched in the language of maths, so GÄodel's theorem might seem to imply that it is impossible to write down a complete mathematical description of the Universe from which all physical truths can be deduced. Physicists have largely ignored GÄodel's result, however. "The main reason was that the result was so abstract it did not appear to connect directly with physics," says Cahill. But then, in the 1980s, Gregory Chaitin of IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York, extended GÄodel's work, and made a suggestive analogy. He called GÄodel's unprovable truths random truths. What does that mean? Mathematicians de¯ne a random number as one that is incompressible. In other words, it cannot be generated by an algorithm{a set of instructions or rules such as a computer program{that is shorter than the number. Chaitin de¯ned random truths as ones that cannot be derived from the axioms of a given formal system.A random truth has no explanation, it just is. Chaitin showed that a vast ocean of such truths surrounds the island of provable theorems. Any one of them might be stumbled on by accident{an equation might be accidentally discovered to have some property that cannot be derived from the axioms{but none of them can be proved.The chilling conclusion, wrote Chaitin in New Scientist, is that randomness is at the very heart of pure mathematics (24 March 1990, p 44). To prove his theorem, GÄodel had concocted a statement that asserted that it was not itself provable. So GÄodel's and Chaitin's results apply to any formal system that is powerful enough to make statements about itself. "This is where physics comes in," says Cahill. "The Universe is rich enough to be selfreferencing{for instance, I'm aware of myself." This suggests that most of the everyday truthsof physical reality, like most mathematical truths, have no explanation. According to Cahill and Klinger, that must be because reality is based on randomness. They believe randomness is more fundamental than physical objects. At the core of conventional physics is the idea that there are "objects"{things that are real, even if they don't interact with other things. Before writing down equations to describe how electrons, magnetic ¯elds, space and so on work, physicists start by assuming that such things exist. It would be far more satisfying to do away with this layer of assumption. This was recognised in the 17th century by the German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz. Leibniz believed that reality was built from things he called monads, which owed their existence solely to their relations with each other. This picture languished in the backwaters of science because it was hugely di±cult to turn into a recipe for calculating things, unlike Newton's mechanics. But Cahill and Klinger have found a way to do it. Like Leibniz's monads, their "pseudo-objects" have no intrinsic existence{they are de¯ned only by how strongly they connect with each other, and ultimately they disappear from the model. They are mere sca®olding. The recipe is simple: take some pseudo-objects, add a little randomness and let the whole mix evolve inside a computer. With pseudo-objects numbered 1, 2, 3, and so on, you can de¯ne some numbers to represent the strength of the connection between each pair of pseudo-objects: B12 is the strength of the connection between 1 and 2; B13 the connection between 1 and 3; and so on.They form a two-dimensional grid of numbers{a matrix.The physicists start by ¯lling their matrix with numbers that are very close to zero. Then they run it repeatedly through a matrix equation which adds random noise and a second, non-linear term involving the inverse of the original matrix. The randomness means that most truths or predictions of this model have no cause{the physical version of Chaitin's mathematical result. This matrix equation is largely the child of educated guesswork, but there are good precedents for that. In 1932, for example, Paul Dirac guessed at a matrix equation for how electrons behave, and ended up predicting the existence of antimatter. When the matrix goes through the wringer again and again, most of the elements remain close to zero, but some numbers suddenly become large. "Structures start forming," says Cahill. This is no coincidence, as they chose the second term in the equation because they knew it would lead to something like this. After all, there is structure in the Universe that has to be explained. The structures can be seen by marking dots on a piece of paper to represent the pseudo-objects 1, 2, 3, and so on. It doesn't matter how they are arranged. If B23 is large, draw a line between 2 and 3; if B19 is large, draw one between 1 and 9. What results are "trees" of strong connections, and a lot of much weaker links. And as you keep running the equation, smaller trees start to connect to others. The network grows. The trees branch randomly, but Cahill and Klinger have found that they have a remarkable property. If you take one pseudo-object and count its nearest neighbours in the tree, second nearest neighbours, and so on, the numbers go up in proportion to the square of the number of steps away (click on thumbnail graphic below). This is exactly what you would get for points arranged uniformly throughout three-dimensional space. So something like our space assembles itself out of complete randomness. "It's downright creepy," says Cahill. Cahill and Klinger call the trees "gebits", because they act like bits of geometry. They haven't proved that this tangle of connections is like 3D space in every respect, but as they look closer at their model, other similarities with our Universe appear. The connections between pseudo-objects decay, but they are created faster than they decay. Eventually, the number of gebits increases exponentially. So space, in Cahill and Klinger's model, expands and accelerates{just as it does in our Universe, according to observations of the recession of distant supernovae. In other words, Cahill and Klinger think their model might explain the mysterious cosmic repulsion that is speeding up the Universe's expansion. And this expanding space isn't empty. Topological defects turn up in the forest of connections{pairs of gebits that are far apart by most routes, but have other shorter links. They are like snags in the fabric of space. Cahill and Klinger believe that these defects are the stu® we are made of, as described by the wave functions of quantum theory, because they have a special property shared by quantum entities: nonlocality. In quantum theory, the properties of two particles can be correlated, or "entangled", even when they are so far apart that no signal can pass between them. "This ghostly long-range connectivity is apparently outside of space," says Cahill. But in Cahill and Klinger's model of reality, there are some connections that act like wormholes to connect far-°ung topological defects. Even the mysterious phenomenon of quantum measurement can be seen in the model. In observing a quantum system any detector ought to become entangled with the system in a joint quantum state. We would see weird quantum superpositions like Schrdinger's alive-and-dead cat. But we don't.How does the quantum state "collapse" to a simple classical one? In Cahill and Klinger's model, the nonlocal entanglements disappear after many iterations of the matrix equation. That is, ordinary 3D space reasserts itself after some time, and the ghostly connection between measuring device and system is severed.This model could also explain our individual experience of a present moment. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, all of space-time is laid out like a four-dimensional map, with no special "present" picked out for us to feel. "Einstein thought an explanation of the present was beyond theoretical physics," says Cahill. But in the gebit picture, the future is not predetermined. You never know what it will bring, because it is dependent on randomness. "The present is therefore real and distinct from an imagined future and a recorded past," says Cahill. But why can't we detect this random dance of the pseudo-objects? "Somehow, in the process of generating reality, the pseudo-objects must become hidden from view," says Cahill. To simulate this, the two physicists exploited a phenomenon called self-organised criticality. Self-organised criticality occurs in a wide range of systems such as growing sand piles. Quite spontaneously, these systems reach a critical state. If you drop sand grains one by one onto a sand pile, for instance, they build up and up into a cone until avalanches start to happen. The slope of the side of the cone settles down to a critical value, at which it undergoes small avalanches and big avalanches and all avalanches at all scales in between. This behaviour is independent of the size and shape of the sand grains, and in general it is impossible to deduce anything about the building blocks of a self-organised critical system from its behaviour. In other words, the scale and timing of avalanches doesn't depend on the size or shape of the sand grains. "This is exactly what we need," says Cahill. "If our system self-organises to a state of criticality,we can construct reality from pseudo-objects and simultaneously hide them from view." The dimensionality of space doesn't depend on the properties of the pseudo-objects and their connections.All we can measure is what emerges, and even though gebits are continually being created and destroyed, what emerges is smooth 3D space. Creating reality in this way is like pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, throwing away the bootstraps and still managing to stay suspended in mid-air. This overcomes a problem with the conventional picture of reality. Even if we discover the laws of physics, we are still left with the question: where do they come from? And where do the laws that explain where they come from come from? Unless there is a level of laws that explain themselves, or turn out to be the only mathematically consistent set{as Steven Weinberg of the University of Texas at Austin believes{we are left with an in¯nite regression. "But it ceases to be a problem if self-organised criticality hides the lowest layer of reality," says Cahill. "The start-up pseudo-objects can be viewed as nothing more than a bundle of weakly linked pseudo-objects, and so on ad in¯nitum. But no experiment will be able to probe this structure, so we have covered our tracks completely." Other physicists are impressed by Cahill and Klinger's claims. "I have never heard of anyone working on such a fundamental level as this," says Roy Frieden of the University of Arizona in Tucson. "I agree with the basic premise that 'everything' is ultimately random, but am still sceptical of the details." He would like to see more emerge from the model before committing himself. "It would be much more convincing if Cahill and Klinger could show something physical{ that is, some physical law{emerging from this," says Frieden. "For example, if this is to be a model of space, I would expect something like Einstein's ¯eld equation for local space curvatures emerging. Now that would be something." "It sounds rather far-out," says John Baez of the University of California at Riverside. "I would be amazed{though pleased{if they could actually do what you say they claim to." "I've seen several physics papers like this that try to get space-time or even the laws of physics to emerge from random structures at a lower level," says Chaitin. "They're interesting e®orts, and show how deeply ingrained the statistical point of view is in physics, but they are di±cult, pathbreaking and highly tentative e®orts far removed from the mainstream of contemporary physics." What next? Cahill and Klinger hope to ¯nd that everything{matter and the laws of physics{emerges spontaneously from the interlinking of gebits. Then we would know for sure that reality is based on randomness. It's a remarkable ambition, but they have already come a long way. They have created a picture of reality without objects and shown that it can emerge solely out of the connections of pseudo-objects. They have shown that space can arise out of randomness. And,what's more, a kind of space that allows both ordinary geometry and the non-locality of quantum phenomena{two aspects of reality which, until now, have appeared incompatible. Perhaps what is most impressive, though, is that Cahill and Klinger are the ¯rst to create a picture of reality that takes into account the fundamental limitations of logic discovered by GÄodel and Chaitin. In the words of Cahill: "It is the logic of the limitations of logic that is ultimately responsible for generating this new physics, which appears to be predicting something very much like our reality." |
