Perhaps you don't find it interesting because you don't understand what it is saying; which would be a bit ironic since you claim to be a "curious"/unbiased person. — dclements

Oh, I understand. I'm just a bit more curious. And a few more years of studying nature you will find that evolution of the mind is continuous. It is, shall we say, the purpose of life. If you don't believe me, observe how many minds stop learning vs. how many choose not to procreate. It is what it is.

No need to justify your extraordinary calculations. You had me when you predicted the demise of the universe as fact. Gutsy move.

You are a mess.

I said no preferred frames of reference. The muon can be said to be at rest and thus there is no effect on its decay.

Who the heck am I talking to. A kid?

You know, you are, like good scientist, suppose to say that STR does not apply to accelerating systems, and then I'm suppose to ask you, then where the heck is there such a thing as a non-accelerating system?

Then you are suppose to throw out STR as being universally irrelevant, and nd then I throw out STR time, linear and all. And then you are left with GTR time which is ?????, well definitely not linear.

Am I missing too fast for your you? No worry, just turn it around, and you'll be moving too fast for me.

Nah, just laughing and wondering how many people buy into your gobblygook? Your demise? Are you working on the precise calculations? Need funding?

Not even the beginning of interesting. People can live their life with zero curiosity about the nature of life, but I have found it extremely beneficial in many practical ways to inquire into the nature of nature. But there is no necessity to do so, just as there is no necessity to procreate. If not this life, maybe the next? Evolution of the mind continues no matter what.

Silly, silly. STR says no preferred frame of reference. The humans are the ones accelerating. Muon at rest. No effect on muon decay. So, sorry.

BTW, I am loving every moment of this as you display monumental ignorance of STR? Or would you prefer to just toss STR out for the moment because it is inconvenient?

Heck, anyone who can predict as fact what will be happening billions upon billions (maybe trillions) of years from now has to be .... well, just a remarkable fortuneteller. Thank you for putting my mind at rest. Not in my lifetime at least. Any other long-term forecasts?

Laughing hysterically. Looks like? Deceleration? STR? I noticed some members actually take you seriously. Well, heck millions believe politicians why not you?

Of course we now have to account for dark energy. And again - in my view - decoherence is the best hope of that. Because quantum level uncertainty can only be constrained, not eliminated, then that means that the fabric of spacetime is going to have a built-in negative pressure. It is going to have a zero-point energy that causes quantum-scale "creep". — apokrisis

I don't know whether I should laugh or cry. I am sure many members are awaiting breathlessly for the final verdict on what will happen billions and billions of years from now as science refines it's precise calculations. No doubt such calculations will require increased funding. Come to think of it, how about forecasting tomorrow?

What's with the need to propagate ourselves through time? — MikeL

There isn't such a thing. Some people do, others don't. There is no need.

Another question and probably more interesting metaphysical question is why do certain people choose to propagate? I believe the answer lies in the nature of spirituality.

"looks like"? Zero ontological implications. The human beings are decaying slower from the muon's point of view. No real change in the muon's decay rate. And that is STR.

BTW, they is no direction either. Humans are accelerating away from the muons which are sitting still. You just like making things up on the fly. More of your "scientific doubletalk"? I really wonder how many forum members actually believe the gobblygook you post? Did you just predict the death of the universe as fact? My guess is many buy into your nonsense. After all it's scientific fact and who better to proselytize scientific myths and fantasies. Science can't even predict what will happen tomorrow, but a billion, billion years from now? Why not? It's a very, very long time.

No. I understand it very well. No preferred frame of reference. Period. The muin is not moving faster, it is the observers. The muons aren't decaying at a different rate it is the humans observers. Yes. Relativity holds fast.

No. I did fine. I just observed those that were the best at parroting got the best grades. Zero ability to question the obvious. After all the "A" is what counts. The jobs go to the lemmings.

Remember: all frames of reference are reciprocal. The muons don't behave any differently in any frames of reference according to Relativity. You see, I understand.

What you think I don't understand? I think you did a beautiful job of articulating the scientific explanation: "It all just happened over a very, very long time". Ok, thanks for the insight. It's incredible how science has an answer for "everything".

Oh, I forgot, it just happened over a very, very long period of time. That makes it infinitely more scientific as opposed to the seven day Biblical version. When in doubt, give more time. It makes it far more digestible. Big mistake of Genesis was that it limited the magic to only seven days. Science got it right (from a marketing perspective). Whatever, it still remains vapid, yet a good story for those you are satisfied with "it just happens".

Everyone should spend an hour looking around and observing everything "that just happened". Heaven forbid we entertain the possibility of an Intelligence that we all experience. It has to be "It Just Happened" that did it all.

I agree. I certainly have no love for the Copenhagen Interpretation nor the way the Copenhagen group successfully rammed it down everyone's throat.

It must hurt that all effects are relativistic. The muon isn't decaying faster, the human on Earth is because the human is actually the one accelerating? :) Let's keep it Relativistic. :) But then again, if they are both accelerating relative to each other, then the effects cancel each other out? Oh well, so much for no preferred frame of reference. What a mess.

I always noticed that those who parroted the best did the best in science class. Memorize and parrot.

If quantum experiments were not repeatable, we wouldn't have any reliable knowledge or data concerning them... — VagabondSpectre

They are repeatable only to the extent that there always had to be an aspect of the experiment that is unknown. Heisenberg Principal. Hence the information is good enough for all practical purposes but necessarily unknown as far as completeness is concerned.

Determinists are always mixing up precision with good enough FAPP. It is the difference between the two that makes Determinism obsolete and Determinism good enough for the faithful.

Really, you want to make Quantum deterministic? Well the only way is to explore the Infinite Worlds of Everett's Mega-World Many Worlds. First you have to devise a experiment that crosses into the Infinite Worlds. I would say Occam's Razor would implore the Calvinist version of fate and Heaven. Far easier with the same results.

Nope. No preferred frame of reference. Everything remains the same in it's own frame of reference. It is the core of relativity. Sorry you have to look elsewhere.

P.S. I know you read it or heard it some where and are just parroting. Ask for a refund.

It just so happens that the behavior it engages in DOES so — Jake Tarragon

The all encompassing "it just happens" theory for everything.

Now, is this any better than the biblical explanation? It's actually nothing. We're simply told to take this vapid explanation on faith. As for me, I don't waste my time on the magical emergence of everything.

may be quite possible that the core self is what we return to, and that we can enter into a particular body to live out a particular life. Once we die, then we simply return to the core self, and our memories return, like awakening from a dream. — Sam26

The core self would be memory which can be simply the fabric of the mind/holographic nature of life. Yes, it would be exactly like a dream.

Relativity says no preferred frame of reference. Period. I have no idea why you brought relativity into muon decay. It is irrelevant. Relativity is about measurement transformation between frames of reference. It as no ontological significance.

Right. Muon's decay takes much longer and Relativity says it shouldn't. There is no preferred frame of reference. Fancy that.

Gays can procreate and have procreated. — Harry Hindu

So .... oh, well.

You actually have someone agreeing with you which is more astonishing than your statement itself.

Reciprocity. Sorry for the auto-correct error.

One of us is going to look a lot older than the other the next time we meet. — apokrisis

Can't happen. Relativity requires reciprocity in all frames of reference. Neither traveler can be viewed as growing older.

What I am proposing is that the sentience must be there all along — MikeL

Yes, life (mind) had to be fundamental unless one believes that it is possible to mix some lifeless chemicals together and magically life springs from the gloop.

If that can be explained in a causal framework then it restores the idea that probability reflects a lack of knowledge about the world, it's not fundamental. — Andrew M

Probability can still be baked in the universe even with a causal interpretation. The cause may be inherently probabilistic, which is one of the possible interpretations of the Bohm quantum potential initial conditions. Hence, the reason Bohm suggested that his interpretation is causal yet non-deterministic.

Yep. It's all situational and always in flux.

Causality (what the laws of physics seek to describe) has to do with determinism because it "determines" how matter and energy behaves. — VagabondSpectre

The only scientific equation that we have that speaks to causality is quantum theory. It is probabilistic. Nothing is repeatable. Some much, much less so than others. Every event is different and measurements are always approximate and that is only for those events that can actually be measured.

If you need enlightenment, go read Daniel Dennet. He is about as close to a prophet as you are going to find for the determinism religion. Now, I know what it means to talk to people of faith, so this is going to get us no where, so let's call it an end. Otherwise it gets silly.

You talk about brains, and neurons, and gravity, and circuitry sounds very scientific and creates a lot of gravitas, but at the end has nothing to do with determinism.

As to why people gravitate to ideas of faith, it is hope, something to grasp on to. For atheists it is the Laws of Nature that has fated their lives. It is a religion in so many words.

Actually my, tentative acceptance of determinism is an off-shoot of science. — VagabondSpectre

No, it is still offshoot of Calvinism that was concocted to push a particular economic interests knowing full well the psychology of their target market (audience). Of course, true believers never really question their faith in what they want to believe.

To understand faith one has to go no further than the atheists who embrace Determinism. It is exactly, precisely the same.

The rest of your story reads like a TV repair manual but has just about as much evidence for determinism as Genesis. But you believe in it unquestionably. That is the nature of faith.

There are mountains of evidence suggesting that if you damage the brain, you alter the mind. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, there is a mountain of evidence that if you damage a TV circuit, it will alter the picture not the TV studio where shows are actually produced. The religion of course lies in the unshakable faith that all of this is fated. It's actually rather amusing and ironic how Determinism is merely a religious off-shoot of Calvinism. Determinists adopted the faith in fate without the God. In God's stead, naturally, there is Natural Laws.

If you attempt to predicate Free Will upon Morality you only create new problems which in experience simply do not exist.

Free will is no more and no less than the ability of the mind to choose a direction of action couple with the capability to exert will to attempt to effect such action. Beyond this it is open season including what the mind may consider moral, immoral, or no moral.

Calling something fundamental and irreducible is quite a leap of faith, — CasKev

If you can find something that is lower than the mind that doesn't require a leap of faith then go for it. It is there in everyone's lives, it is learning, it is creating, and it is evolving and it is not only fundamental to existence, it is existence.

More likely, the mind (our central processing unit) is just not well enough understood yet. As technology continues to advance, the complexities of the brain will be unwoven, probably to the point where we will be able to 'see' a decision being made. — CasKev

Now we are entering into faith and religion. Using words like technology, CPU, etc. doesn't make it scientific, though it might make you feel like it does. As with all an anthropomorphic gods, all you have done is created one more - The Computer Brain, that determinists worship. It's a religious story.

Wouldn't that be true for human consciousness, as well? — John Days

One can only stop for a moment and behold in the amazement of one's own mind, that cannot only create tools such as lawnmowers, grills, and computers, but can create, observe, and feel all that there is. Through endless and continuous learning and creative evolution, the mind still is able to continue on with yet more and more with no end. We, all who participate, are amazing.

There is nothing amazing about computers. There is endless amazement of the humans who create it and the programs that drive it.

I didn't take it as anti-gay, particularly, but I find the idea of people having children in order to find a purpose in life a little disturbing. It's asking a lot of one's children to make your (parental) life purposeful. — Bitter Crank

To promote the idea that humans only purpose is to procreate falls in line with any anti-gay agenda. Beyond this, it is so hopelessly empty that is certainly can be quickly dismissed by anyone who doesn't intend to spend their life in bed and then ending it quickly once their procreation powers have dwindled. Ugh. I remember actually hearing this stuff in public school.

A computer does not detect a face and certainly cannot be aware of one. A computer can only process on/off. It is the programmer (a human) that gives meaning to these on/off bits (a face?), and it is a human that gives awareness to any thing the computers spits out. Ultimately a computer is and always be equivalent to a very fast abacus.

Anyone who believes that a computer is anything more than a bunch of on/light switches had been watching way too much TV and should stop immediately.

Did I stutter? — Harry Hindu

Nah. Just ridiculously antigay and advice that is useless to anyone who cannot have or decided not to have children. Come to think of it, probably everyone can ignore this utterly vapid advice.

You don't. Let it find you. In time it will, but it requires patience.

"This above all, too thine own self be true."