"an ancient dilemma..."

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"If you ask anyone What part of your body do you believe your consciousness resides? the answer is always (a few exceptions are to be expected) the same. It's easy enough to make the argument that the mind and brain are same, until it's understood that the mind simply resides in the brain and is not the brain itself. Proof of this is when you die being with spiritual potential." (my same page reply to Penguin)

Similar observation?

Yes, it is similar, but I wasn't simply rephrasing what Penguin said. I didn't see where Penquin had said that, but I have to admit it does match up very closely to what I said. I'm trying to avoid going in cold and commenting in new threads without reading any previous messages first, but I'm sure to miss more than a few points as I'm catching up.


Edit: I see what your is point now. Penguins comment was the first post I responded to, and apparently I forgot exactly what he said as I was going on and on about science and philosophy. The only part where I disagree (and why I responded to begin with) is where he makes a definitive statement that the immaterial self ceases to exist. My point had more to do with the fact that a scientist cannot legitimately make such a definitive claim, because it involves making an observation outside the limitations of natural science.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I missed winning the Nobel prize by thaaaaaat much...
(imagine my thumb and forefinger being held apart by 1/2 inch)

I don't dispute the authority of people who know so much more than I do. What I dispute is a presumption of enforcement by self-deputized authoritarian wannabes who went to university before ending up at a game site messag ...[text shortened]... with brillance without needing to fall back on befuddling BS... or is it the other way around?

Actually what you were doing was attempting to 'correct' a 'mistake' you
perceived others to be making about a subject you demonstrably know very
little about.

The nature, and potentially even existence, of time is very much an open
question in physics.

But in those formulations where it is relevant time is very much an actual
dimension.
In some variants the entirety of time exists all at once and thus objects
consist of 4 dimensional shapes that stretch out in the time dimension
as well is the 3 of space.

And what we see is simply a series of 3 dimensional snapshots of this
4 dimensional reality.

Similarly in M theory there is the potential (and perhaps requirement) for
multiple universes with varying numbers of spacial dimensions, some with more
and some with less than we have.

If M theory were true then those other universes would be just as real and physical
as ours.



My point being that having studied this at university I appear to have a much better
grasp of what it is we do... and more importantly don't know... than you do.

There are others on this site who have a better grasp than me.

I know that...

And you appear to be telling them how physics works, when even I can see you
don't have a clue.

The phrase "teaching grandma to suck eggs" springs to mind.

Originally posted by googlefudge

My point being that having studied this at university I appear to have a much better
grasp of what it is we do... and more importantly don't know... than you do.

I don't doubt you appear to have a much better grasp, but who exactly are you referring to when you speak of this appearance? Who exactly are you speaking to, or imagine is watching and judging your performance?

What exactly is it you presume to not know that I do not know that you do not know, and what the heck is that even supposed to mean?

Originally posted by lemon lime
I don't doubt you appear to have a much better grasp, but who exactly are you referring to when you speak of this appearance? Who exactly are you speaking to, or imagine is watching and judging your performance? And what exactly is it you presume to not know that I do not know that you don't know?

It's hard to know how to answer your questions when it appears you don't understand normal English.

Originally posted by lemon lime

Yes, it is similar, but I wasn't simply rephrasing what Penguin said. I didn't see where Penquin had said that, but I have to admit it does match up very closely to what I said. I'm trying to avoid going in cold and commenting in new threads without reading any previous messages first, but I'm sure to miss more than a few points as I'm catching up.

...[text shortened]... ecause it involves making an observation outside the limitations of natural science.

"My point had more to do with the fact that a scientist cannot legitimately make such a definitive claim, because it involves making an observation outside the limitations of natural science."

We agree (and I'm glad you're here and am wondering if you're a Fraternity Friend of LemonJello lol).

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's hard to know how to answer your questions when it appears you don't understand normal English.

Not as hard as talking to someone who supposedly knows so much more than I do, but is apparently oblivious to someone like Hawking who regularly employs conceptual and imaginary numbers in his universe theories, and then presents them as though they are finished theories.

It's also difficult for me to take your I went to university line as a substitute for many of the statements you haven't bothered to back up, or maybe don't feel the need to? I want to believe you, but frankly you are not helping yourself by spinning off the same BS lines over and over again.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"My point had more to do with the fact that a scientist cannot legitimately make such a definitive claim, because it involves making an observation outside the limitations of natural science."

We agree (and I'm glad you're here and am wondering if you're a Fraternity Friend of LemonJello lol).

I don't know what Fraternity Friend of LemonJello means, but I can tell you this... I am strictly a purist, and would never resort to crass commercialism by endorsing a product containing one or both of my fragrant essences. I'm just plain old lemon lime, and you will never find me hobnobbing with just any old gelatinous goop in a bowl of Jello.

And then there are those times when I am thoroughly convinced that I am much too good for myself, but that's when I know the blood sugar is getting low and I need to start stuffing food into my gob.

Originally posted by lemon lime

I don't know what Fraternity Friend of LemonJello means, but I can tell you this... I am strictly a purist, and would never resort to crass commercialism by endorsing a product containing one or both of my fragrant essences. I'm just plain old lemon lime, and you will never find me hobnobbing with just any old gelatinous goop in a b ...[text shortened]... t's when I know the blood sugar is getting low and I need to start stuffing food into my gob.

"I don't know what Fraternity Friend of LemonJello means."

Compatibility/ Complementary aspect of citrus flavors, that's all.
Out of curiosity, what products would you endorse?

"... and I need to start stuffing food into my gob." Ha,

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"I don't know what Fraternity Friend of LemonJello means."

Compatibility/ Complementary aspect of citrus flavors, that's all.
Out of curiosity, what products would you endorse?

"... and I need to start stuffing food into my gob." Ha,

There are products I would probably endorse, but at the moment none come to mind. If I happen to think of one I'll get back to you and let you know. I've never thought about endorsing a product because I'm not a celebrity or someone many people know. But maybe I could gain celebrity status by first endorsing a product, and then wait for the paparazzi to show up in my back yard with their cameras while I'm sitting naked in the hot tub.

No, I should get a hot tub installed first and then do the endorsements. I don't know. Maybe what I should do is hire an experienced agent to advise me before I get started with this... yeah, that should be the first thing on my list.

Awww CARP!! That's what I forgot today! I have a to-do list for today but I forgot to look at it! I completely lost track of time blathering away at people I've never met and will never see except in print. But that's okay, I'll just talk to myself tomorrow as I'm taking care of business, and hope people assume I have a bluetooth jammed up so far into my ear they can't see it.


I should have rolled up me shirt sleeves before stuffing food into my gob, but it's too late for that now. Hoo boy, what a day this has been!

Originally posted by lemon lime
Time is not a true dimension. This is both intuitive and correct, and is easily proven. If you freeze time and then view any physical object you will see that all three dimensions of that object are still there, but the so called 4th dimension of time has vanished.

Of course its 'vanished' you just froze it, ie you made it a constant.

And just to be clear, all three true dimensions are needed for any material object to exist as physical reality.
Why? In what way does a two dimensional object not exist?

Notice how Hitler also vanishes when you freeze time?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
...John Bright's sense of meaning in his memorable line, "He is a self-made man and worships his creator."

[]_ [[]] []_

As much as I hate to admit it, I have no trouble understanding what that means. Whereas at one time when I did worship myself as a self-made man, I would have found that statement to be utterly absurd. I often remind myself of something Shakespeare said in one of his plays, and it always seems as though he is speaking directly to me:

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy...

And according to one formerly self admiring narcissist:

"The more I learn the less I know, the less I know the more I wonder."
- Sir Lemon Lime

Lemonylimeshire University; all rights reserved; reproduction without the expressed permission of the Lemony Lime conservatory trust will be dutifully prosecuted under whatever law we can find even remotely close to being relevant... because we can really really really use the extra cash right now.



Sir Lemon Lime is currently available for product endorsements

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course its 'vanished' you just froze it, ie you made it a constant.

[b]And just to be clear, all three true dimensions are needed for any material object to exist as physical reality.
Why? In what way does a two dimensional object not exist?

Notice how Hitler also vanishes when you freeze time?[/b]

In your minds eye take any real three dimensional object (like a board) and start shaving away one of those dimensions until it is only one atom thick. Then shave the last remaining (third dimensional) atom thick layer off and look at what you have left... what do you see?

I don't know how freezing time can make it a constant, or did you mean something else? It's not like time is an object that can be literally frozen, I simply meant imagining cause and effect stopping and all motion ceasing. In that scenario time can not be a constant because it literally ceases to exist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course its 'vanished' you just froze it, ie you made it a constant.

[b]And just to be clear, all three true dimensions are needed for any material object to exist as physical reality.
Why? In what way does a two dimensional object not exist?

Notice how Hitler also vanishes when you freeze time?[/b]

"Notice how Hitler also vanishes when you freeze time?"

I have no idea what that means.

Originally posted by lemon lime
In your minds eye take any real three dimensional object (like a board) and start shaving away one of those dimensions until it is only one atom thick. Then shave the last remaining (third dimensional) atom thick layer off and look at what you have left... what do you see?

A slice through the universe. What do you see? Get to your point.

I don't know how freezing time can make it a constant, or did you mean something else?
That is what freezing time means. It means choose a constant on the time axis and only consider points of the universe in that plane.

It's not like time is an object that can be literally frozen, I simply meant imagining cause and effect stopping and all motion ceasing.
Now I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean consider the universe at a given point in time, or do you mean pretend time is moving but nothing is happening?

In that scenario time can not be a constant because it literally ceases to exist.
Why does it cease to exist? When you did you slicing above, did one of the spatial dimensions cease to exist? If not, why not? If it did, then why is it different from time?

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]"Notice how Hitler also vanishes when you freeze time?"

I have no idea what that means.[/b]

If you take a snapshot of the universe today, you will not find Hitler in it. He won't exist. You claimed that objects require spatial dimensions to exist, but not time. I claim that Hitler requires time to exist.