I am just getting done with "A brief history of time" and have "The Elegant Universe" in queue on my bookshelf behind "Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the meaning of life" and "Mitochondria: The Dynamic Organelle".....on top of all my txts for class and research papers. A brief history of time has been a good read so far and I have heard good things about Brian Greene and his writing style. I'm looking forward to getting it started. I'll probably go get this one as well and put it in the queue. I don't imagine listening to this in audio format would be too entertaining. Although, I've never heard Brian Greene speak. **Just looked at a youtube video. It might not be so bad to listen to but I would prefer to read it myself anyway
there is the possibility that we could create another universe within this universe..it wont do us any good, as we could not enter it.. but would be fun to do one weekend. "hey bill..what did you do this weekend"? nothin much...played god.
Yeah, I only put this audio book video up because it was the only one I could find that related to the new book. I've read Brian Greene's other 2 books and I enjoyed them both! I'd recommend that anyone read his stuff, it's great. If you like Brian Greene, I would definitely recommend that you read some Carl Sagan. He was an amazingly eloquent writer. The stuff he tends to cover in his books is simpler and more general than Greene's, but he has a great way of writing that is just very fun to read.
Have you guys read "Programming the Universe"? It has some interesting ideas and for once, has a plausible explanation for the wave/particle duality of electrons in the double-slit experiment. Though the book gets VERY repetitive at times. And NSMan, I'm a big fan of Sagan
We actually help shape our own reality with our thoughts and actions imo. Manifest Destiny was a thought before it was reality. I believe we're part of a mass consciousness that is affected like a chain reaction by what we do and think. Sort of like the Kevin Bacon 6 degree's of separation thing. Have you guys seen the Masaru Emoto water crystal experiment?
Sorry, I'm totally confused. Manifest Destiny was an American imperialist policy that was used to justify war with Mexico in the mid 1800s. Also, nobody could duplicate Masaru Emoto's experiment after he did it...so it's kind of invalid. Erdos-Bacon numbers don't really mean anything, they just define how close a given person is to someone famous. What does this have to do with other dimensions anyway?
I'm talking about us going from horses and buggies to cars and cell phones bro. Not the political aspect of it and the raping/pillaging of indigenous people. In about a time span of 100 years we have completely transformed into a technological society. It was all thought before reality. P.S. Nobody has conclusively confirmed Emoto is wrong.
That's one of the concepts of "Programming the Universe." Evolution was not a random phenomenon, it was the result of the Universe shaping its own destiny. Seth Lloyd uses mathematical examples to calculate this. We shape our destiny as human beings. Most of the technology we have today was conceived decades ago in pop-culture. Now, it has become reality because we wanted it to be. If we can dream it, we can build it. Of course, you can say this is just theory, but in the world of physics, what isn't?
I was talking about sound waves/vibrations effects on water. Like the rice experiment. This experiment had people praying thousands of miles away. Exactly the point I was trying to make.
It sounds kind of like you're implying that the universe has a will and that inventions come from dreams. I looked up that book, and I don't think that's what it's about. It sounds like he's proposing a new way of thinking about things that takes a more mathematical perspective: "everything in the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information — ones and zeros. … Atoms and electrons are bits. Atomic collisions are "ops." Machine language is the laws of physics. The universe is a quantum computer." -- Seth Lloyd Brian Greene also puts forward ideas based on mathematical thinking, but he's careful to note that you have to remember to temper those things with experiment. Mathematics is (after all) just a language, and it's easy to get caught up in semantics. I think it's also important to remember that technical innovations don't just come from ideas. They come from the collective work of many people who dedicate their lives to fundamental research. The innovations of the past are no less amazing than the ones of today. The domestication of the horse was a process that took place over thousands of years, and it's still going on today. The greek mathematician Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth around 200BC to within 1% error. These aren't just "ideas" or "thoughts", it's a legacy of achievement that has taken place gradually over thousands of years. Without Martin Cooper there would be no cell phone, and without Guglielmo Marconi there would be no Martin Cooper, and without James Clerk Maxwell there would be no Guglielmo Marconi...and on and on and on. It didn't come from lots of people liking Star Trek and willing it to happen! It's disrespectful to debase this legacy down to "ideas" or "thoughts" or "imagination" of one or just a few individuals. It's tempting to make heroes, but we are the ones who are pushing ourselves onward. Likewise, it's not a group of people hoping happily. Technical innovations are not "ideas" or "imagination"; they are fundamental research first, and because of that they are the results of our own curiosity. That being the case, if we can dream something, can we build it? Absolutely not! We can understand many things, but we are completely limited by our environment, by our history, and by our own willingness to ask questions. "Thoughts", "Ideas" and "Imagination" are only the smallest piece of the puzzle. I also have a really good example of something in the world of physics that isn't "just theory". This might also be helpful.
Link please! Also, please see the post I made to Rubius for the other point. It is basically impossible for anyone to prove that the universe has a will or that human thoughts influence physical objects. This is because of the point brought up at the end of the triple-blind study I linked to before, you can't measure or isolate projected thought, it's something completely intangible and unmeasurable. The data put forward by Emoto and many other people like him either depends on others to disprove him rather than himself proving things or just bad experimental practice. I will tolerate no magic wand waving or crystal ball gazing in my threads, unless this is a Harry Potter review. Can we go back to talking about the book now??
I think you might have a narrow view on things. I'd be surprised to hear if you accept string theory as plausible, and not just because a prominent figure promotes it. I can't believe you linked to the LHC. Goes to show you didn't fully understand my post.
It is an experiment, but you missed the point. When a person speaks a word, that word does not belong to him. That word belongs to those who hear it. It is for them to interpret and find a meaning to. Some can decrypt the message to find the true meaning, while others can't accomplish it as well. From your posts I can tell you need some work in the decryption department. Just a friendly tip that hopefully helps you in the future. I honestly felt like I was talking to a robot. At that point I just stop.
Got me there. I do not think inside the box, so logically I can't prove or disprove anything, but nor can anyone else including scientists. We have proof of the Pyramids, because they actually exist, but even with our technology we cannot recreate them. You've got me interested in the book, will be interesting to see where this guy is coming from.