Is infinity scary?

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, coloradobillsfan said:

Not unless there's someone there to look for it  😉

 

That’s how I avoided quizzes in college. I slept in. 

[Mike in Horseheads]

[GoBills808]

11 hours ago, Logic said:

Yeah, exactly.

The example that most directly blew my mind was that a rainbow literally doesn't exist without an observer. The observer is a necessary variable for the existence of the rainbow. And that's just the esoteric example that the mind can most easily grasp. The same holds true for, say, a basketball. Mind blowing.

How does a rainbow literally not exist without an observer?

[boyst]

4 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

How does a rainbow literally not exist without an observer?

They exist in June with many observers.

[LeviF]

6 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

How does a rainbow literally not exist without an observer?

 

The problem with the lay understanding of stuff like this is that it can be extended to pretty much anything and is taken to an everyday physical reality rather than a mostly theoretical metaphysical one. 

 

Does color exist without an observer? That's the basic question. "Color" is, for the most part, simply the result of certain wavelengths of visible light being absorbed and reflected. But the term "visible light" itself actually implies that in order for it to be categorized as such it must be observed. So is that imprecise language or a reflection of reality?

 

If it can't exist without being observed, then there's questions about every discovery made in space, to include our neighboring planets. Did Mars pop into existence the moment the first human saw a dim red star in the evening sky? The question answers itself.

[ExiledInIllinois]

6 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

How does a rainbow literally not exist without an observer?

Your paradise doesn't exist without you!

Hawaii "The Rainbow State" doesn't exist. 

😆 

😉 

[muppy]

Infinity doesn't scare me.  It kind of bores me actually.  If here is no beginning there is no end too correct? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz  blah Blah BLAH

[WhoTom]

Infinite regression:

 

 

https://steemit.com/art/@mandibil/hipgnosis-album-covers-ummagumma-by-pink-floyd-1969

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by WhoTom

[Logic]

8 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

How does a rainbow literally not exist without an observer?

"A rainbow does not exist at a particular location in the sky. Its relative position depends on the position of the observer and the sun. All raindrops refract sunlight in the same way, but only the light from some raindrops reach the observer's eye. This light is what constitutes the rainbow for that observer."

"Rainbows are formed when light from the sun is scattered by water droplets (e.g. raindrops or fog) through a process called refraction. Refraction occurs when the light from the sun changes direction when passing through a medium denser than air, such as a raindrop. Once the refracted light enters the raindrop, it is reflected off the back and then refracted again as it exits and travels to our eyes. "

https://www.rmets.org/metmatters/how-are-rainbows-formed#:~:text=Rainbows are formed when light,air%2C such as a raindrop.

While the conditions for and phenomena associated with a rainbow exist in and of themselves, the experience we knows as "rainbow" requires an observer. It is our experience of seeing light and color, and our position relative to the meteorological phenomena present, that produce the "seeing a rainbow" experience.

Sense experience, relativity. and the inseparability of "observer" and "thing being observed" are the critical factors.

For a deeper dive down that rabbit hole, I'll refer to the erudite fellow in my avatar, Mr Alan Watts, though this is only for those that wish to go further down the rabbit hole, like Royale with Cheese after he ate his edible:

"A still more cogent example of existence as relationship is the production of a rainbow. For a rainbow appears only when there is a certain triangular relationship between three components: the sun, moisture in the atmosphere, and an observer. If all three are present, and if the angular relationship between them is correct, then, and then only, will there be the phenomenon 'rainbow.' Diaphanous as it may be, a rainbow is no subjective hallucination. It can be verified by any number of observers, though each will see it in a slightly different position."

"Today, scientists are more and more aware that what things are, and what they are doing, depends on where and when they are doing it. If, then, the definition of a thing or event must include definition of its environment, we realize that any given thing goes with a given environment so intimately and inseparably that it is more difficult to draw a clear boundary between the thing and its surroundings."
 

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Logic

[ExiledInIllinois]

If everything is observed, explain erosion.  Something is happening when nobody is watching. 😏 

 

[Augie]

8 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

How does a rainbow literally not exist without an observer?

 

If you find your foot stuck in the railroad tracks with a high speed train approaching, just put on your headphones and close your eyes. All will be fine. 

 

 

As far as you know. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

23 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

If you find your foot stuck in the railroad tracks with a high speed train approaching, just put on your headphones and close your eyes. All will be fine. 

 

 

As far as you know. 

Why does it have to be high-speed? 

 

Suspense is under-appreciated nowadays.

 

[GoBills808]

3 hours ago, LeviF said:

 

The problem with the lay understanding of stuff like this is that it can be extended to pretty much anything and is taken to an everyday physical reality rather than a mostly theoretical metaphysical one. 

 

Does color exist without an observer? That's the basic question. "Color" is, for the most part, simply the result of certain wavelengths of visible light being absorbed and reflected. But the term "visible light" itself actually implies that in order for it to be categorized as such it must be observed. So is that imprecise language or a reflection of reality?

 

If it can't exist without being observed, then there's questions about every discovery made in space, to include our neighboring planets. Did Mars pop into existence the moment the first human saw a dim red star in the evening sky? The question answers itself.

I thought he was talking about the observer effect and quantum decoherence. Rainbows exist regardless of an observer. It's like saying if you close your eyes your reflection in a mirror doesn't exist.

[Gugny]

3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I thought he was talking about the observer effect and quantum decoherence. Rainbows exist regardless of an observer. It's like saying if you close your eyes your reflection in a mirror doesn't exist.

 

Time doesn't exist.  Nor does momentum in sports.

[GoBills808]

Just now, Gugny said:

 

Time doesn't exist.  Nor does momentum in sports.

Both likely correct

[Augie]

4 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Time doesn't exist.  Nor does momentum in sports.

 

“The distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

 

Albert Einstein. 

[The Frankish Reich]

Those were some good edibles.

Actually, for some obscure reason I don't understand, it was the infinitesimal -- not infinity -- that quite literally scared the bejesus out of the powers that be.

 

https://www.npr.org/2014/04/20/303716795/far-from-infinitesimal-a-mathematical-paradoxs-role-in-history

 

"Geometry is orderly. It is absolutely certain. And once you get results in geometry, nobody can argue with you," Alexander says. "Everything is absolutely provable. No sane person can ever dispute something like the Pythagorean theorem."

That orderliness had captured the attention of the Jesuits, who had been trying to cope with the crisis of the Reformation.

"If we could have theology like that," Alexander explains, "then we could get rid of all those pesky Protestants who keep arguing with us, because we could prove things."

But the debate over infinitesimals threw a wrench into that thinking.

The whole point of mathematics was to be certain, Alexander says. "Everything is known, and everything has its place, and there's a very orderly hierarchy of results there. And now, in the middle of that, you throw this paradox, and you can get all those strange results. That basically means that mathematics can't be trusted, and if mathematics can't be trusted, what else can?"

The 17th-century rivalry between English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, left, and English mathematician John Wallis lasted decades.

So the Jesuits waged a war of letters, threats and intimidation against the supporters of the infinitesimal, a group that included some of Italy's greatest thinkers — Galileo, Gerolamo Cardano, Federico Commandino and others. In Italy, the Jesuits' victory was complete.

 

Ponder that the next time you have "back pain."

Edited March 16, 2023 by The Frankish Reich

[WhoTom]

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

 

Time doesn't exist.  Nor does momentum in sports.

 

Salary cap too, or so I've read here.

 

 

[LeGOATski]

"Spooky action at a distance" is the weirdest thing to me...maybe also considered scariest. The unknown can be scary.

[Punching Bag]

On 3/15/2023 at 9:15 AM, LeviF said:

Ate a powerful edible at, what, 8:30 in the morning?

 

Get a job.

Some people do not work day shift or on that matter eat "edibles".

[Augie]

On 3/16/2023 at 12:34 PM, Gugny said:

 

Time doesn't exist.  Nor does momentum in sports.

 

I think a better word for “momentum” is confidence. Confidence is a very real factor. You see a couple shots go down or make a few putts, you can play loose and free. The mind is an amazing thing! 

[PromoTheRobot]

On 3/15/2023 at 10:14 AM, Jauronimo said:

And the universe is expanding in all directions at once.  But what is it expanding into???

 

The universe isn't expanding. The matter inside is shrinking. From our view it looks like expansion. 

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

You know what the scary part is? We know more about the universe than our oceans that are right next to us. 

[LeGOATski]

1 hour ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

You know what the scary part is? We know more about the universe than our oceans that are right next to us. 

That's not true. We know a lot less about the mechanisms/forces driving the universe and what all possibly resides out there.

 

We may not know about everything residing in the dark depths of the ocean, but we know how it works.

[ExiledInIllinois]

6 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

That's not true. We know a lot less about the mechanisms/forces driving the universe and what all possibly resides out there.

 

We may not know about everything residing in the dark depths of the ocean, but we know how it works.

This is what I meant.

 

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/do-we-know-space-better-our-oceans

 

"Question:

Do we know more about space or about our oceans?

Answer:

Sam got in touch to ask if it's true that we know more about space than we do about our oceans. Chris Smith put this question to ecologist Danni Green from Anglia Ruskin University...

Danni - In short I'd say yes it is. Particularly if you're talking about... understanding the topography and the shape of the oceans. So for example technically we have got 100 percent of the oceans mapped but the resolution is to 5000 metres whereas we've mapped 98 percent of Venus to 100 metres resolution.

Chris - So we do know quite a bit about quite a few places but not necessarily the bottom of the sea. ..."

[LeGOATski]

1 minute ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

This is what I meant.

 

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/do-we-know-space-better-our-oceans

 

"Question:

Do we know more about space or about our oceans?

Answer:

Sam got in touch to ask if it's true that we know more about space than we do about our oceans. Chris Smith put this question to ecologist Danni Green from Anglia Ruskin University...

Danni - In short I'd say yes it is. Particularly if you're talking about... understanding the topography and the shape of the oceans. So for example technically we have got 100 percent of the oceans mapped but the resolution is to 5000 metres whereas we've mapped 98 percent of Venus to 100 metres resolution.

Chris - So we do know quite a bit about quite a few places but not necessarily the bottom of the sea. ..."

That's very specific, does not equate to the general statement of "we know more about the universe than our oceans"

[ExiledInIllinois]

13 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

That's very specific, does not equate to the general statement of "we know more about the universe than our oceans"

You're missing the point.

 

K.I.S.S. The cosmos are rather simple to observe. 

 

"...Compared to the difficulties with studying the ocean, learning about space is a walk in the park. Humans have been able to study the cosmos since essentially the beginning of time by simply looking up at the stars. The telescope, a quintessential part of astronomy, has been used for studying the night sky since Galileo first pointed it upwards in 1609 (via the Library of Congress).   ..."

 

Read More:

https://www.grunge.com/841530/do-we-know-more-about-space-than-earths-oceans/

 

[4merper4mer]

9 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

You're missing the point.

 

K.I.S.S. The cosmos are rather simple to observe. 

 

"...Compared to the difficulties with studying the ocean, learning about space is a walk in the park. Humans have been able to study the cosmos since essentially the beginning of time by simply looking up at the stars. The telescope, a quintessential part of astronomy, has been used for studying the night sky since Galileo first pointed it upwards in 1609 (via the Library of Congress).   ..."

 

Read More:

https://www.grunge.com/841530/do-we-know-more-about-space-than-earths-oceans/

 

Wouldn’t methane oceans on planets in other galaxies be part of the cosmos?  How much do we know about them?

[ExiledInIllinois]

4 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Wouldn’t methane oceans on planets in other galaxies be part of the cosmos?  How much do we know about them?

What? Are you scared too about the statement we know less about our oceans right next to us than a frozen methane ocean a zillion miles away?

 

And here we thought infinity was scary when people are scared with sh... right next to us! 😏 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by ExiledInIllinois

[LeGOATski]

34 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

You're missing the point.

 

K.I.S.S. The cosmos are rather simple to observe. 

 

"...Compared to the difficulties with studying the ocean, learning about space is a walk in the park. Humans have been able to study the cosmos since essentially the beginning of time by simply looking up at the stars. The telescope, a quintessential part of astronomy, has been used for studying the night sky since Galileo first pointed it upwards in 1609 (via the Library of Congress).   ..."

 

Read More:

https://www.grunge.com/841530/do-we-know-more-about-space-than-earths-oceans/

 

You know how difficult it is to study whats underneath the ice on the moon's of Jupiter?

It's a dramatic generalisation probably to try to entice people to care more about our oceans, which is not to say it's a foolish mission

[ExiledInIllinois]

11 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

You know how difficult it is to study whats underneath the ice on the moon's of Jupiter?

It's a dramatic generalisation probably to try to entice people to care more about our oceans, which is not to say it's a foolish mission

A walk in the park?

 

"...Compared to the difficulties with studying the ocean, learning about space is a walk in the park..." 

 

So there's life on Jupiter like at the bottom of our oceans?

 

Just like our sun... It's pretty much simpler than right next door in our oceans. We have a better understanding of Venus than the bottom of our oceans.

 

Infinity isn't scary. Right next to us is. 

[LeGOATski]

3 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

A walk in the park?

 

"...Compared to the difficulties with studying the ocean, learning about space is a walk in the park..." 

 

So there's life on Jupiter like at the bottom of our oceans?

 

Just like our sun... It's pretty much simpler than right next door in our oceans. We have a better understanding of Venus than the bottom of our oceans.

 

Infinity isn't scary. Right next to us is. 

The mechanism driving our sun is much more scary than what's in our ocean and no, we don't know exactly how it works/when it'll die/when it will shoot dangerous levels of radiation at us. It's extremely difficult to study that.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Just now, LeGOATski said:

The mechanism driving our sun is much more scary than what's in our ocean and no, we don't know exactly how it works/when it'll die/when it will shoot dangerous levels of radiation at us. It's extremely difficult to study that.

We know when it will die. Long after me. That ain't scary. My death is! Sorta... 😉 

[LeGOATski]

11 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

We know when it will die. Long after me. That ain't scary. My death is! Sorta... 😉 

Pray that's the case. I wish you a painless, noble death.

[4merper4mer]

10 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

What? Are you scared too about the statement we know less about our oceans right next to us than a frozen methane ocean a zillion miles away?

 

And here we thought infinity was scary when people are scared with sh... right next to us! 😏 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m not scared about anything, much less your blatantly incorrect statement.  The methane ocean I described may or may not be frozen….it may or may not even exist……therefore we know less about it than we do about our own oceans.  I’m not, nor is anyone else, saying we shouldn’t learn more about the bottom of our oceans.

[ExiledInIllinois]

12 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

I’m not, nor is anyone else, saying we shouldn’t learn more about the bottom of our oceans.

Be careful, there could be aliens there too.

[4merper4mer]

Just now, ExiledInIllinois said:

Be careful, there could be aliens there too.

Math has the same answer to that as always.

[Augie]

10 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

Pray that's the case. I wish you a painless, noble death.

 

Was “but no time soon” an oversight, or an intentional omission? You rascal you! You left us wondering!   😋

11 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

What? Are you scared too about the statement we know less about our oceans right next to us than a frozen methane ocean a zillion miles away?

 

And here we thought infinity was scary when people are scared with sh... right next to us! 😏 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you heard what’s parked on the ocean floors? It’s a hot topic!  🚀 👽 

[LeGOATski]

35 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Was “but no time soon” an oversight, or an intentional omission? You rascal you! You left us wondering!   😋

It doesn't matter. Time is relative. This is also scary.

[Augie]

5 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

It doesn't matter. Time is relative. This is also scary.

 

So, if we don’t look at him, he’s not really there???