is the ability of people who are cortically blind due to lesions in their striate cortex, also known as the primary visual cortex or V1, to respond to visual stimuli that they do not consciously see — Gnomon

Yes! There are people who reside in the dark but at the same time see motion.

Encopresis! — Agent Smith

Fecal incontinence? :grin:
It would turn to food. The apple would turn whole in my mouth and jump back in the tree. Counterintuitive but possible. If the futùre was the reversed begin it would happen.

I see your point. Thanks for the contribution. I'm not sure if we'd not notice it. Forces stay the same if all particles and processes reverse direction. All particles and the spacetime they are in, as well as the developing wavefunctions could have started in a very (infinite) far future with all motions reversed. It would be strange though to first hear the thunder or see the lightning, after which the light and sound converges to the blitz.

Was the video played forwards/backwards? They won't be able to answer this question. Hmmmmm. :chin: — Agent Smith

Well, you have to show them more than that piece. What they don't see is the balls causing sounds an electromagnetic radiation, and heat. In fact, you will always be able to see if a process goes forward or backward. The question is though why not everything runs in reverse (and not a tiny patch, maybe artificially arranged. Though it's the question if a small patch can be said to go backwards. All or nothing.

When we open Schrodinger's box, we should be getting entangled with the simultaneously dead and alive cat — Count Timothy von Icarus

Why should the cat be entangled with the poison device in the first place? If the device is a vial with poison connected to a Geiger counter, the cat will simply die when the poison is released by a count and stay alive if not. Regardless if we look or make a measurement. It's the standard interpretation (fundamental probability without an underlying mechanism as in the throwing of a die) that causes this mayhem.

MWI is as bonkers as the guy who invented it. Can't wrap my head around the fact that people have faith in such a weird fantasy. And it doesn't even resolve what its made for. Maintaining unitary evolution. The branching points introduce the same weirdness as the so-called problem it tries to get rid of. The only viable interpretation is the objective collapse interpretation, equivalent to hidden variables.

As I already wrote, it's not the second law that I don't understand, or the arrow going forwards. I just ask why it doesn't go backwards. The fact that the forward direction has a higher probability isn't an explanation. Probabilities are no explanation. You simply say the second law of thermodynamics holds because it holds. That's circular. Saying time goes forward because it goes forward. Probabilities have nothing to do with this. But thanks anyway!

But you could just as well argue the other way round. If entropy only decreased, it would be very unlikely for time to go forwards. If the initial state of the universe would lay in the very far future, at infinity maybe, the universe could have started from there with everything in opposite motion. I know a gas in a corner has a low probability of occurring spontaneously, but if the initial configuration is right then there is nothing that prevents time from going backwards. Its a complete mystery to me.

The principle of explosion and paraconsistent logic. The solution to all paradoxes. It puts the barber and Russel at ease. All the other paradoxes can be resolved by science or religion. Unless Zen and Nirvana are involved. Is this a paraconsistent dox?

Time moves the direction it does because there is just one way an egg broken on the floor could regather into an egg but there are a billion gazillion trumpillion ways it could just sit there in a yellow puddle. — T Clark

But why doesn't it and all around it move backwards. Why isn't the law that entropy decreases?

I understand the arrow of time, but I don't understand why the arrow doesn't point from future to past.

The assumption that we know how the phenomenon relates to the noumenon is not a reasonable one in my mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not the assumption. The assumption is that noumenon exists independently of us. When we appear, phenomenon appear and shape the noumenon.

So I agree that the noumenon is real, but I do so only by rejecting scenarios like the brain in the vat — Metaphysician Undercover

The brain in vat is a persistent fantasy indeed. A brain needs us or animals to live in and can't be separated from it to live in an artificial vat, not even in fantasy. This assumes noumenon and phenomenon can be separated while in reality they are attached to each other.

Others like myself prefer to go with the idea that inflation/expansion is not 'into' anything as it is everything — universeness

This idea has a bigger problem than fine-tuning (which I think is not a fundamental issue in context of a broader theory of elementary particles), which is how the metric of space can change over time. It's easy enough to write down a time dependent metric but the question how space grows is not answered by that. So why isn't everything moving backwards? It's a possibility and if it happened you couldn't reverse it back in time (which would be forward in time). Why doesn't an inverse second law of thermodynamics hold which means an entropy always decreasing...

The classical approach is that the inflation happens in an infinite space, i.e, eternal inflation. In isolated pockets of this infinite eternally inflating space, inflation is halted and arrested. That pocket is our universe. Then in time, space starts inflating again and becomes one again with the inflating space it's embedded in.

There are problems with this view. How can space expand? What happens to the photons that emerged in all isolated pockets (universes)?

The infinite space I visualise is the (spatially) 4D bulk space our finite 3D space expands into. Why wasn't it set in motion from the other side of time (at infinity)? So an infinite space collapsing to a singularity and all particle motions, wavefunction and space metric evolutions, etc. Reversed. So all photons of the Hawking radiation that will be all that's left in our forward running universe
would reverse their momenta, meet at the black hole horizons, form black holes that eject matter (so they become white holes), and a universe crushing in towards the singularity that would be the end, instead of the begin as we perceive it.

That there is some sort of correlation between "the terrain", as a product of your sensations, and the thing itself, is just an assumption people make. — Metaphysician Undercover

But there is a difference between a dreamt storm and a storm in the world we see when we're awake. The noumenon and the phenomenon are equally real. If nobody perceives the sound as a sound, the sound waves are still there but the conscious experience of them is not. An assumption which we can never proof, as we're not there in that scenario. But a reasonable one, seems to me.

Can your personal conception of the attributes of God be reversed? — universeness

Imagine, just for the sake of argument, gods brought about the universe with all particles having initial conditions, momenta, energies, and positions, in an expanding space. Why didn't he arrange it to begin at infinity, ending at the singularity?

Heat and light radiate outwards — universeness

Yes. But... Why they don't radiate inwards? Why isn't the beginning of time situated at the end? I think I'm drifting off from reality a bit now Stephen, but still... I asked this on a physics site, but the question was closed for being a duplicate of a question about the Loschmidt paradox I didn't agree though.

You were in communication with Mr Tegmark, did you accuse him of 'asserting his own private physics' regarding his level I to level IV multiverse? Do you think Roger Penrose is doing the same with his 'bouncing' Universe? or Carlo Rovelli with his 'localised' wave function collapse? — universeness

:up:

I just watched Rovelli talking to a big public. I like how he says "consequences": consequences.

By definition, all quantum interpretation must make the same predictions as quantum theory. If it doesn't, it isn't an interpretation of that theory. So by saying this, you're asserting that all quantum physicists are wrong, and you alone have sole access to some kind of special truth, and not just a deluded belief. — noAxioms

Considering your name, noAxioms, I'm surprised you dislike an interpretation that goes against the basic axioms. I don't say quantum physists are wrong. Newton was not wrong either, in the domain of application. It's just that hidden variables make the same predictions as standard QM, except in a domain that's difficult to access experimentally (but it is in principle).

I can't imagine myself doing all I do without consciousness. But to say that's the explanation? It is necessary maybe for a "matter-system" to do what it does, but that doesn't mean it is just an emergent property. It might as well be the other way round (matter an emergent property).

That's all great, but why can't all that happen in the dark? — bert1

That's the best counter argument! There is something inside of matter that gives light. Why don't we move without consciousness?

Why is the twin paradox a paradox? Because people mostly can't imagine clocks to tick at different rates. But they do. It's why we fall down. I told this to someone and she said I am crazy...

They specifically prioritize civilian targets over military ones. — DingoJones

And what then is the target of economic sanctions?

If Europe wants to hit Putin and his comrades, why not boycotting his gas? Because the population would freeze. I wouldn't be surprised if Putin closed the pipes himself.

I wish they spend that on my neurons! Could ask a fair fee!

when you can daydream about the role of the office secretary as the stern nurse — god must be atheist

Does she carry the whip? Sheer curiosity....

I think part of why it is such a big topic is that physicalism is a very successful idea, and explains a lot of things. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In fact it explains nothing. That's only part of the rhetoric and propaganda used, to pull the non-believers over the borderline and fool the children's minds.

The very act of you writing that the idea is successful proofs the trickery to lure you in worked.

NASA budget for 2020 was $20 billion while only $10 billion was spent on neuroscience — Agent Smith

"Only" 10 billion? For such a small volume it's relative an infinite amount!

Apart from knowing the outside we can understand the inside of things. Which means we can understand what we know. Knowledge is about perception (the chart), understanding about the the object an Sich (terrain). The terrain is still there when I don't look. The perception is gone. What is perceived and understood depends on the observer.

What does it mean when you show a word you crossed out? Thought process?

A crashed computer can't be compared with a mind (is that why you crossed it out?). Zen means excluding all thoughts. Only experiencing the moment. But some structural organization remains. A mourning dove, a ticking clock, gas flowing in a pipe, an ache in the chest, a fly zooming in a glass, a door shutting, a fucking fridge, the whistle of a neighbor. It blends together in one... oh oooh...

Paradoxes break (classical) logic — Agent Smith

Only when you use different types. The principle of explosion, based on two contradicting statements, was removed by the introduction of paraconsistent logìc, as its name suggests. It was used by Zermelo and Frankel to save set theory from disaster, Hilbert's paradox, with those strange sets including themselves, no longer paradoxed and the village barber could shave his own beard without repercussions...

Is an optical illusion a paradox? Can things move while standìng still? Can stairs go up while keeping you leveled? Can clocks run dìfferently for different observers? The last paradox is not an optical paradox. It's a veridical one.

Three types of paradox

Falsidical – Logic based on a falsehood.
Veridical – Truthful.
Antinomy – A contradiction, real or apparent, between two principles or conclusions, both of which seem equally justified.

Maybe the optical illusion paradox should be included.

It strikes me that many (most? all?) so-called paradoxes are really just playing with language. — T Clark

Escher's paradoxical ever up or down going stairs is about the angle of vision (that resolved the seeming contradiction). The twin paradox is about everyday experience and gravity, resolved by general relativity. "Contra-diction" is not always about diction.

Great work! And you even get paid for it! You have involved with the Colatz conjecture at any time in your career? It's proven up to 2^70 numbers! But how to prove it for all numbers? 2^70 is peanuts in the face of infinity. Do we have to calculate all individual orbits?

You confide in a close friend an embarrassing fact about a third person, expecting your friend to not reveal your comments, which they do to the third person and that third person commits suicide. You have done something wrong. — jgill

After which you never tell them again. I had a similar experience. I once worked on the beach of a beautiful isle. Putting up beds and all that. I confided a personal deed to the boy in the kitchen who told my nonna... Damned, she got angry! I learned my lesson. Dunno if that (me telling) counts as a wrong action though... Maybe if it was a tale about someone else.

From Wiki:

A peanut gallery was, in the days of vaudeville, a nickname for the cheapest and ostensibly rowdiest seats in the theater, the occupants of which were often known to heckle the performers. The least expensive snack served at the theatre would often be peanuts, which the patrons would sometimes throw at the performers on stage to convey their disapproval. Phrases such as "no comments from the peanut gallery" or "quiet in the peanut gallery" are extensions of the name.

Does F(t) have a physical interpretation? It's a remarkable formula!

OK, you're asserting your own private physics now. — noAxioms

So?

Kind of arrogant, no? I'm just saying that your claims are unbacked and waaay over the top. — noAxioms

With what should I back them up?

Ù

One physicist to another, eh? The peanut gallery awaits eagerly — jgill

Haha! All physicists are monkeys at the base. But monkeys know what gravity is better than Einstein... :wink: