Jim Naseum Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 He's not giving up yet on black holes. he is now suggesting we could power the whole earth with a small black hole orbiting the earth. And in the process, win his long awaiting Nobel Prize. How can the author of THIS masterpiece miss? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 A great book by an incredible mind. I have often wondered if he's set the record for survival with that disease. If so, it would suggest that someone with real purpose can overcome almost anything but a safe landing on their heads. Dave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twk123 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Very interesting. Lol it does sound kind of shady though, "Ok guys so we have figured our how to use Nuclear fission to power electrical stations but we barely have a grasp on keeping them safe as a viable long term solution, so lets go with plan "B" to rip an artificial hole in space time and create a black hole and have it orbit earth and use that to collect power instead..." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsear Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 A great book by an incredible mind. I have often wondered if he's set the record for survival with that disease. If so, it would suggest that someone with real purpose can overcome almost anything but a safe landing on their heads. Dave ALS comes in a few varieties and it is one of the motor neuron diseases and in and of itself, it is not lethal like a cancer for example. Certainly a challenge but one of proper - if complex care. As long as the man is mechanically supported and otherwise sustained he will live......... he may live longer since he is not wearing out pathways through normal usage. I would draw a comparison to Christopher Reeves (AKA Superman). He suffered from traumatic quadriplegia but was in a similar boat. He had funds and access to the best care possible, but he made poor choices. Reeves died young because of improper care and poor care planning. Having dealt with innumerable such cases I am very impressed with Hawkings fortitude and his health team. Hopefully science will soon discover a cure for this ailment. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 As long as the man is mechanically supported and otherwise sustained he will live......... Interesting. Nonetheless, his choices are probably good because he has a focus that he is able to do. Actually, whilst I am sure he'd rather be without the disease, the fact he can do little but think probably aids his work. As to putting a black hole in orbit around the earth, let's just make sure those guys who mixed metric and common measurements on that mess of a Mars mission aren't involved. Might get all that power at once... Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 A great book by an incredible mind. I have often wondered if he's set the record for survival with that disease. If so, it would suggest that someone with real purpose can overcome almost anything but a safe landing on their heads. Dave Yes, an incredible mind. He can fathom, for instance, that the arrow of time only moves in one direction for the HUMAN MIND, but moves in all directions for the rest of the universe. His reasoning was impeccable. Computation can only increase entropy. The human brain computes! Therefore, we can only imagine time moving in the direction of increasing entropy! Simple, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 The human brain computes! Hence the total loss of us and our science to comprehend, much less understand, non-temporality. Dave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 The human brain computes! Hence the total loss of us and our science to comprehend, much less understand, non-temporality. Dave Now yer talkin'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twk123 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 A great book by an incredible mind. I have often wondered if he's set the record for survival with that disease. If so, it would suggest that someone with real purpose can overcome almost anything but a safe landing on their heads. Dave Yes, an incredible mind. He can fathom, for instance, that the arrow of time only moves in one direction for the HUMAN MIND, but moves in all directions for the rest of the universe. His reasoning was impeccable. Computation can only increase entropy. The human brain computes! Therefore, we can only imagine time moving in the direction of increasing entropy! Simple, really. But isnt the mind, and more specifically consciousness, an instrument to constantly battle against Entropy? Energy always moves from a useful to a non-useful state and life's processes have the ability to use consciousness to create order to fend off, at least temporarily, the natural tendency to disorder or equilibrium. Such as our ability to maintain the ecosystem of our body for 80 or so years until the laws of the universe catches up with us and we decay into equilibrium of the soil at which point plant life etc uses our decayed body to sustain their temporary lives and so on. In fact, our entire civilization was created to more efficiently and effectively ward off this natural tendency. Perhaps we should not look at time in a linear function but rather that of a balance between Creation and Decay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Energy always moves from a useful to a non-useful state and life's processes have the ability to use consciousness to create order to fend off, at least temporarily, the natural tendency to disorder or equilibrium. Those are the two competing ideas, and neither one of them can rule out the other. It is the "Yin and the Yang." If things always tend toward disorder, isn't that order? Order implies disorder, and vice versa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Perhaps we should not look at time in a linear function but rather that of a balance between Creation and Decay. We can't help but look at time in the way we do. Time is relevant because we have this understanding of much of life's events: Not now. The only reason we have a concept of time is because something has occurred, or something will occur. The basic want for something necessarily implies time as we know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 A great book by an incredible mind. I have often wondered if he's set the record for survival with that disease. If so, it would suggest that someone with real purpose can overcome almost anything but a safe landing on their heads. Dave Yes, an incredible mind. He can fathom, for instance, that the arrow of time only moves in one direction for the HUMAN MIND, but moves in all directions for the rest of the universe. His reasoning was impeccable. Computation can only increase entropy. The human brain computes! Therefore, we can only imagine time moving in the direction of increasing entropy! Simple, really. But isnt the mind, and more specifically consciousness, an instrument to constantly battle against Entropy? Energy always moves from a useful to a non-useful state and life's processes have the ability to use consciousness to create order to fend off, at least temporarily, the natural tendency to disorder or equilibrium. Such as our ability to maintain the ecosystem of our body for 80 or so years until the laws of the universe catches up with us and we decay into equilibrium of the soil at which point plant life etc uses our decayed body to sustain their temporary lives and so on. In fact, our entire civilization was created to more efficiently and effectively ward off this natural tendency. Perhaps we should not look at time in a linear function but rather that of a balance between Creation and Decay. Good thoughts. I believe the mind can use meditation transcendentally to see the arrow of time going in other directions. But, short of that, the net net of your life must be an increase in entropy. I think Hawking was describing human psychology, as in, the tendency of seeing the arrow only moving to increased entropy. Certainly, many easterners reject that maxim.Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 Energy always moves from a useful to a non-useful state and life's processes have the ability to use consciousness to create order to fend off, at least temporarily, the natural tendency to disorder or equilibrium. Those are the two competing ideas, and neither one of them can rule out the other. It is the "Yin and the Yang." If things always tend toward disorder, isn't that order? Order implies disorder, and vice versa. I think the reference is energy state.Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 For consideration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28energy_dispersal%29 Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 For consideration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28energy_dispersal%29 Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk I glossed it, and the takeaway seems to focus on "energy dispersal" as a simple means of explaining entropy theory. Here's the problem: You have things like hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, sunspots, weather fronts, etc., and these are all forces that we don't really perceive as being "dispersed" in the sense that its dispersal means anything like "time is running out." The theory implies an ultimate state. Who says there has to be an ultimate state? Further, who can prove what any possible ultimate state could be like? It's not fathomable. It cannot be explained. The human mind doesn't know what that is. What "is" is. Babies are born to an incredible number of species. New species are coming into existence. That would seem to imply some interesting form of "energy concentration," not "energy dispersal." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 The universe is 13B years old. And of course very large. So, hurricanes are just a little noise. Thermodynamic entropy says that instead of hot suns and warm rocks and planets and empty space that's cold, everything will settle into one even temperature given enough time. Earth's hot core will cool. The sun will burn out. Buildings will fall. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 The universe is 13B years old. Or 6000 years, or 1 second. Time is relative. Once that was established, any definition of duration became rather relative as well. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 The universe is 13B years old. Or 6000 years, or 1 second. Time is relative. Once that was established, any definition of duration became rather relative as well. Dave Relative yes, arbitrary no. I think the estimate in "years" is referencing the distance light travels over time.But sure enough, relative to some other event it could be the blink of an eye! It's not all that meaningful. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 I think the estimate in "years" is referencing the distance light travels over time. Appears to us to travel over time is fundamental to your statement. That's the "relative" part. One not unreasonable interpretation of the Final Anthropic Principle says that when we discover some galaxy or whatever at a new, unbefore discovered distance, that "whatever" came into existence because we, the observers, expect it to be there from our science. So, it took 13 billion years for the light to get here but in fact in came into existence only at the moment we had to find it to support that view. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 I'm not keen on the various APs, since the number of them seems to keep growing, as do the arguments. At one level I agree that the universe doesn't exist without the mind to observe it. But, I find no reason to adopt the creator argument that goes along with it. The APs, are just a line of cosmological reasoning, and complete with dozens of other lines of reasoning, none of which can be subjected to experimentation. It's interesting though. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.