Backwards Land

Discussions on classical and modern physics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, etc.

Backwards Land

Postby BadgerJelly on December 4th, 2016, 6:47 am 

You've probably heard thsi thought before.

Let us say that time runs in the other direction so that our view of rain is not that is falls from the sky but that it rises from the earth. So our view wouls be that rain is caused by "evaporation" and that mist is caused by "condensation". In this case gravity would be the force that causes rain to rise from the earth into the sky to form clouds which would then "condense" down into bodies of water.

I guess my question can be perceived as a little metaphysical here. The question is would we view gravity as a force pushing matter apart? It appears so. So in this situation would we view gravity as not being strong enough to lift us from the earth.

Also thinking about this in regards to centrifugal force it seems that this would be reversed and appear as gravoty does to us now in many respects. Assuming, somehow we could still appreciate causal sequence we could effectively know the "future" by rcognising a broken item and see destruction as a sign of making something.

These ponderous thoughts have gotten me thinking about our bias "being". Of course I understand that if physical laws suddenly change and we have reverse entropy then our very physical being will also operate within these laws. So we would not think towards the past merely reverse our direction and blindly succumb to reversed entropy not remain as a special case out of the loop.

What has gotten me thinking about this is "entropy" in general. I am very interested in what physicists think about entropy in regards to cognition and natural laws. Meaning how entropy varies from system to system and the "possibility" that in some subtle ways entropy may actually be said to "reverse" and that our cognitive capacity impells us to regard such an idea as inherantly illogical and therefore "false".

I admit this is an incomplete thought and I am sure we've all played with some strange thoughts in order to gain a different perspective on how nature "functions".

Okay ... Move to metaphysics maybe? Leave that decision up to you lot :)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
zetrequevivian maxine liked this post


Re: Backwards Land

Postby Inchworm on December 4th, 2016, 2:27 pm 

Hi Badger,

Have you seen this movie where the guy pulls his girlfriend down to him with a rope, from the world in the sky where bodies have their gravitational mass reversed?
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 539
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Backwards Land

Postby zetreque on December 4th, 2016, 10:15 pm 

In this hypothetical universe, reversing time wouldn't change that there would still be pockets of order in the universe and states of disorder. So just a quick thought is that the percentage of space that is ordered vs disordered wouldn't change, just the direction.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2725
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Backwards Land

Postby BurtJordaan on December 5th, 2016, 12:35 am 

And would we all grow younger and end up in the womb and then in the egg cell again?

Interesting games to play, but physically nonsense. Time symmetrical solutions of the laws of physics do not mean time can go backwards, only that we can calculate back in time to what has been...

The forward 'arrow of time' is determined by the inevitable increase in entropy.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Backwards Land

Postby BadgerJelly on December 5th, 2016, 2:40 am 

So the past doesn't exist anywhere except in the mind of a physicist.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Backwards Land

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 5th, 2016, 5:11 am 

Hi BJ,

In my Model, History is not erased but becomes static (Expanding Block Model) and we may possess the technology to explore Real History in a VR simulation through the use of what one might call a Quantum Virus.. someday. It's a type of Logic probe that can trace world-lines backwards through the Quantum and send the results back to Us for reconstruction in VR. It's pure SyFy today, but in another 30 years.. who knows?

It raises some potential Paradoxes. Suppose you got a Dream Warning to not drive on your next Birthday, as you would be having a deadly accident. If the warning came from a Future version of You, then you must have heeded the warning in order to become the future version that sent the message. The future version of you would already know you had heeded the warning because there was no accident. But if the future version had no reason to foresee the Accident, you would have never gotten the warning from your future self, because you didn't survive.

But I don't see such as being an issue. Events of the past are set by events prior to those events. This means that world-lines must be self-healing (by their History) and thus can't be altered. So you would be limited to just Viewing the past but unable to Change the past.

Still, there are a lot of Historical Figures I'd like to spy on anyway..lol. I would even spy on myself, to see if my memories are as accurate as what really happened at some past event in my life.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3136
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: Backwards Land

Postby BadgerJelly on December 5th, 2016, 5:39 am 

I think no one here is getting the question I am asking.

The question is in regard to physical laws. If we viewed our world rewinding, yet our cognition was working progressively, then would this drastically alter how we could interpret currently held phsyical laws?

In the example I gave in the OP gravity would make rain drops rise from the earth yet we would still view ourselves as jumping up and down and being held on earth by some kind of counter gravitional force. How could we dispell this apparent obviousness? If we could then could we in our actual view of physical laws be able to address some possible solution to this problem amd then apply it and open up a new approach tonour view of reality?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Backwards Land

Postby BurtJordaan on December 5th, 2016, 7:39 am 

BadgerJelly » 05 Dec 2016, 11:39 wrote:The question is in regard to physical laws. If we viewed our world rewinding, yet our cognition was working progressively, then would this drastically alter how we could interpret currently held phsyical laws?

To answer this for physical laws, I suppose we need a physical world, not an imaginary one. E.g. how would a physical world rewind? Other than recording a video and playing it backwards.

Of course if we write a simulation of the "real thing", we can make it run backwards. This was essentially how the Big Bang was originally though of. I think it was Lemaitre that ran the expansion equations backwards and discovered that there must have been a "cosmic egg" from which the expansion began...
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Backwards Land

Postby BadgerJelly on December 5th, 2016, 8:27 am 

Is it me or am I talkign to myself again ?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Backwards Land

Postby Inchworm on December 5th, 2016, 9:18 am 

You're just having a nightmare. Want me to wake you up backwards?
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 539
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Backwards Land

Postby BadgerJelly on December 5th, 2016, 10:12 pm 

Burt -

What I am asking is if you were presented with "causality" running backwards, but to you it was forwards, I used causal reasoning to explain physical phenomenon then could you really conceptualise gravity as being anything like how you look at it now?

My thinking was that we'd view two different forces. One that kept me on the ground and one that allowed water to rise into the air.

When a ball falls we can figure out where it fell from, but if everything was backwards all starting points wouls be from the ground so we'd measure how far the ball rises.

It seems to me that we could use reason and understand gravity. What do you think? What problems arise that you can see in how we would go about this task (this is assuming we have no knowledge of a gravitational force to begin with and are approaching the world as it is given to us)?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Backwards Land

Postby Braininvat on December 5th, 2016, 10:25 pm 

There's a Philip K. Dick novel about this, "Counter-Clock World." Not sure if he gets too deep into physics, though. Wouldn't gravity become a repulsive force, in your scenario? You wouldn't have to reverse time, indeed you couldn't avoid the thermodynamic arrow, but you could change the sign on G and, er, well, watch Earth disintegrate? In short order, the universe would consist of diffuse gaseous clouds spreading out as their atoms repelled each other.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 5232
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Backwards Land

Postby BadgerJelly on December 5th, 2016, 11:12 pm 

Brain -

Of course it would be repulsive. The point is our human view of this as it is presentes to us. A bouncing ball would still go up and down, but rain would rise from the ground.

My point is to view the physical phenomenon as it is. What goes up must come down is a saying that would not work in reverse. Oir view of the world would be quite alien. From this alien perspective I am.just wondering how much more difficult/easy it would be to infer physical laws.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Backwards Land

Postby BadgerJelly on December 7th, 2016, 10:35 am 

To be more specific about basic mechanics, we can see that a falling object falls from somewhere and at some point we can find a zero velocity point from which to apply acceleration. In Backwards Land we start from zero velocity again but we would not see a gradual acceration.

It is an imaginary world, but it is identical to this world only in reverse and with us able to "look in" on it. If you protest this then I would say our causal world is "imaginary" to and we are merely "looking in" on it. Regardless it is an exercise to look at our appreciation of time in a different way and see our assumptions more clearly.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Backwards Land

Postby NoShips on December 15th, 2016, 9:50 am 

Can other people "look in on it" too? Or do you have to be nomologically unwanted?
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1418
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: Backwards Land

Postby NoShips on December 15th, 2016, 10:03 am 

There may be a connection here that only several Bitburgers can bring out (German beer, not grub, alas).

I almost certainly misunderstood, as always, but Badger, aren't you suggesting a world where we disattach ourselves from laws of physics?

Some might claim (I don't care), that if there are such laws, we come attached, by kinda necessity.

A bit like the claim that we can conceive of a world of people (zombies again!!) who are physically identical to us, yet that God in his negligence somehow forgot to attach consciousness to? You say yes; the naysayers say nay.

It's a division that Sinatra denies: get one; get the other. Ask the local gentry.

I almost certainly misunderstood you. Sorry!

Not my fault if you're not pellucid.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1418
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: Backwards Land

Postby NoShips on December 15th, 2016, 10:05 am 

P.S. The other good thing about philosophy is: no one has a fargin' clue who's right.

Edit: And they can't be held responsible for lofty undemonstrable ideals of righteousness. I suggest a little epistemic modesty laced with Jaegermeister. (Xmas is coming).
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1418
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: Backwards Land

Postby BadgerJelly on December 16th, 2016, 5:05 am 

Noships -

I almost certainly misunderstood, as always, but Badger, aren't you suggesting a world where we disattach ourselves from laws of physics?


Yes, kinda ...

I just meant that we assume everything as being causal in one direction ... because that is all we are naturally inclined to do. To view the "past" as a "consequence" would allow us to perhaps view physical phenomenon in a different light.

We cannot do anything other than look at the physical world casually. We often look for patterns and see them where there are none (you probably know the word for that ... it slips my mind).

Now I am thinking of looking at the physical world without making any measurements. So if time was running the other way and we watched a ball bouncing it would still go up and down. If we saw a ball at rest on the floor we would expect it to "start" bouncing higher and higher and perhaps look up at a shelf and say it "will fall" from there.

I am talking purely about a mindset prior to empirical measurement. Just our natural attitude towards phenomenon. And my question is in these circumstances would we find some things more intuitively true than others that would be drastically different from our normal view of the world as it is to us now?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Backwards Land

Postby Dave_C on December 17th, 2016, 11:44 am 

Hi Badger. I guess the question I have is whether or not we would be able to distinguish the world running in reverse or not. If our beliefs supervene on our physical state, we can't 'remember' what happened unless we have a physical state to correspond with that. So if time is in reverse, we can't remember what happened in that future time.

Further, our brain's physical states in Backwards Land would still correspond to our believing time was moving 'forward'.

How could we believe we lived in Backwards Land unless we change something to do with how our experiences supervene on the physical?

I think I've convinced myself that we couldn't possibly tell any difference.....
User avatar
Dave_C
Member
 
Posts: 253
Joined: 08 Jun 2014
Location: Allentown


Re: Backwards Land

Postby BadgerJelly on December 17th, 2016, 1:22 pm 

It is simplier if you assume causation as present yet what you see is in reverse. No point getting bogged down in interactions just think of it from an observational point of view. You would probably learn that ash turns into fire that is lit by smoke coming down from the sky. For other natural phenomenon like ice melting there would not as big a difference from observing the process moving forwards.

To investigate this idea you need to put aside obviousness of the natural laws you know. Of course it is ridiculous to think of this as a physical reality you are interacting with because the light would come out of your eyes! It is an investigation into how we "view" causality (so to speak?). It may help frame the idea better if you dont think about animal life and start to see the ridiculous nature of bird "flying" backwards and un-eating food. It is much easier to view plant life ... the flowers would still open with the sun "rise/set". Many things would appear to be the same. What interests me is the things that appear different such as rainfall and fires, seeing lightning "before" hearing thunder.

I would probably imagine that smaller things are more likely to rise into the air given the experience of rain and seeing fruit rise up onto trees. We would never see a seed rise into the air. We would probably assume that the fruit is the seed rather than containing seed/s. This one is more puzzling for me when I think about life cycle of trees and plants ... in forward time I can see where seeds drop but not know which seeds will develop, and in backwards time I would see where the fruit fell from more easily in some situationa and not easily in others.

I was curious what other things people could think of. Also on micro and macro scales beyond natural human sensibility.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Backwards Land

Postby BadgerJelly on December 31st, 2016, 5:04 am 

To return to the idea of smoke making fires. Here we see energy being condensed into a physical form. Now to think about our natural forward bound world. Can you think of anything acting/appearing like this? My first thought would be photosynthesis. Light comes down and "feeds" the plant life, much like smoke coming down to feed the fire. To reverse this we then find plants "burning" up and emitting light to feed the Sun.

The point here is that I hope you begin to see how a select view of the world can create a select perspective. What is "normal" for us need not necessarily be simply "how it seems", only how it seems and makes sense within our perspective. By extrapolating from our perspective we are bound to see correlations, and I mean "bound" in assuredly and as in binded by our view.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Backwards Land

Postby zetreque on January 5th, 2017, 5:41 pm 

Here is a physics experiment you can't do backwards.


Balancing a Ruler - Numberphile
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2725
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Backwards Land

Postby rajnz00 on January 5th, 2017, 11:13 pm 

BadgerJelly » December 4th, 2016, 6:47 am wrote:You've probably heard thsi thought before.

No never cross my heart.

Let us say that time runs in the other direction


Wow!!

so that our view of rain is not that is falls from the sky but that it rises from the earth.

Amazing so far

So our view wouls be that rain is caused by "evaporation" and that mist is caused by "condensation".

Confused now. That's what happens in forwards land. So this land sometimes runs forward and sometimes backwards?

In this case gravity would be the force that causes rain to rise from the earth into the sky to form clouds which would then "condense" down into bodies of water.


More confusion

I guess my question can be perceived as a little metaphysical here.

What's the question? Metaphysics - is a branch of philosophy investigating the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it. Wikipedia ... Hmmm...

The question is would we view gravity as a force pushing matter apart?

Aah we have a question. Now that's a tough one. Sometimes it would be pushing it apart, in your backwards land, but sometimes it would be pulling it together, like with the rain.

it appears so. So inI this situation would we view gravity as not being strong enough to lift us from the earth.

It would shoot you out at 9.8 metres per second per second. Very soon you would disappear from this earth never to be seen again. But in your backwards land, where it sometimes runs forward, gravity might reverse, with grevious consequences.

Also thinking about this in regards to centrifugal force it seems that this would be reversed and appear as gravoty does to us now in many respects.

Well since there is no centrifugal force, I guess reversing it would not be so serious. Cant imagine how it could suddenly appear as gravity. Your backwards land is indeed mystical and strange. This is better than Narnia or Harry Potter and the Chamber of secrets.

Assuming, somehow we could still appreciate causal sequence we could effectively know the "future" by rcognising a broken item and see destruction as a sign of making something.


Yep. Suicide bombers would be hailed as compassionate hereos.

These ponderous thoughts have gotten me thinking about our bias "being".

Me too

Of course I understand that if physical laws suddenly change and we have reverse entropy then our very physical being will also operate within these laws.

Entropy is just a quantity. What is reverse entropy?

So we would not think towards the past merely reverse our direction and blindly succumb to reversed entropy not remain as a special case out of the loop.

This has got me completely out of the loop

What has gotten me thinking about this is "entropy" in general. I am very interested in what physicists think about entropy in regards to cognition and natural laws. Meaning how entropy varies from system to system and the "possibility" that in some subtle ways entropy may actually be said to "reverse" and that our cognitive capacity impells us to regard such an idea as inherantly illogical and therefore "false".


I am still thinking. Do we have to answer true or false? Or can we answer maybe?

I admit this is an incomplete thought and I am sure we've all played with some strange thoughts in order to gain a different perspective on how nature "functions".

Yep. I had some strange thoughts just the other day.

Okay ... Move to metaphysics maybe? Leave that decision up to you lot :)


metaphysics? - investigating the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it? Nope definitely not that. Must be physics, gravity, centrifugal force and all that stuff.
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Backwards Land

Postby BadgerJelly on January 6th, 2017, 12:54 am 

Raj -

The point of this was to look at physical nature by bracketing out the physical and then returning to the physical attitude.

I am asking you if you set aside all your assumptions about the physical world as "moving temporally forward" and then observed everything in reverse then what natural (not physicalist) view would you have of this world and how may it differ and lead to intuitions of nature and to a differing bias of how physicality would take form.

Think about Newtonian motion. Would such an idea be as easy to come by viewing Backwards land as our obvious world? To us the cause would be smoke and the effect fire.

Of course we can never really knownthe answer to such a bizarre and obscure question because we cannot choose to forget what we are and our experiences of causation. We at least begin to appreciate that such rigorously measured appreciations of causation come from a natural attitude of the world.

If you can think of any instances then please share.

My interest here is in the development of science and how this relates to natural humanist tendences from where science has obviously begun. I am curious as to what help it may be to science to go bakcnto its initial historical roots and explore other possible paths it could've taken and may be of use to it today.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Backwards Land

Postby rajnz00 on January 6th, 2017, 1:52 am 

I'm not sure what you are wanting to say. And I'm not sure you are sure either.

Let me put on my thinking cap and delve into the mysteries of Quantum entanglement and Special and General Relativity, Time, space, the Universe, and empathy and try and come up with an answer, within the constraints of Heisenberg's uncertainty.

Perhaps what you are trying to say is, should science be moral? (You will have to define what morality is) and Can science evolve morality for a just and peaceful world?

Hows that?
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Backwards Land

Postby BadgerJelly on January 6th, 2017, 3:27 am 

As an example. I guess we can appreciate that humans simply saw the Sun rise into the sky and fall back down again every day. These humans would not see this phenomenon for the first time and assume too much about it. They would perhaps pay attention to it. It would be an accepted fact of their natural world.

Once they begin to pay some direct attention to the the Sun they would then perhaps assume that the Sun did not disappear, but rather obscured itself behind something (having a natural understanding of distant things being able to obscure themselves behind other things - also coming to this though after regarding the Sun as a distant object much like a tree, that thought may have taken considerable contemplation and a thought worth consideration in itself). From there these humans could then see the Sun going "under" the Earth or even being "put out" like a fire. They would apply their natural experience to observation in order to understand their life-world as a complete entity.

Also consider tha vastness of the nightsky and it may be that some humans would think that the Sun simply split into a milllion tiny fragments at night producing the stars.

Within naïvety there is a certain "pure" view of things. A child is more excepting of new ideas because they have not been conditioned to think X as wrong and Y as right. Throughout the history of science humanity has had to address certain natural experiences as being improper. We would see a rainbow "over there" when there was nothing there. This we understand today because we understand better how our eyes function and have produced optical science.

So from our observations of the natural world with our natural attitude some things appear in such a way and over time we come to build up a picture and ask questions about the world. I would suggest that these questions come about by being able to understand how we can be wrong about something. How a bush may look like a bear ... which may have been the origin of the idea of "spirit", as in an "appearance" of something that is not there. In todays sense numbers would be "spirits", things we take for granted yet the material substance of them is simply not anywhere in space.

So to go back to what I am asking. If we were a naïve human with a "pure" naturlaistic attitude (a child to the world if you will!) of the world, and rain went "up" and smoke "produced" fire by "igniting" ash, then from this reversed experience of the world would we be so readily able to create a science over millenia and if so would you expect this science, initially from this "pure" natural attitude, to develop as easily in every field as it has for us today from millenia ago?

It may help if you consider a "forward" attitude and a "backward" attitude upon viewing a piece of video footage. Both participants would say in their natural attitude that there is, as an example, a rock falling. But each would be opposite because one observer of the footage would see a rock "falling" "up" and the other would see it "falling" "down". Both would be observing the same phenomenon yet they'd both be conceptualising it is different ways.

So maybe you can see here that if we simply take a physicist today and give them the data "backwards" they can still apply everything they know of their physical attitude of the world and the formulae they use to such data. That is beyond doubt. What they cannot do is disregard all of their life experience of living in a cause and effect world and come to view the data with a blank slate and naïvety. If they could, and this is the attempt to do so through phenomenological reduction, then is there something of possible practical use.

So I am looking atbour cognitive capacity to model the world and how our human (obvious) appreciation is shaped, where considering the impossible can bring us toward a fresh perspective that can open up different investigations.

It is cmpletely okay if you have no idea what I am talking about. It may well simply be too impractical in todays world to consider this as a worthy investigation either because it is beyond present cultural attitudes toward the world or too destructive a thought towards such a current day attitude and actually "regressive" not "progressive" ifnit was brought into fruitition by actual scientists as a way of "observing" their attitude.

I really think that a humanistic attitude towards the world "progresses" science not a physicalistic attitude. I, like you and most people on Earth, I under the compelling notion of a physicalistic attitude. The humanistic attitude today takes rigor to acquire where millenia ago the opposite would be truer. So at the heart of it all I am not asking so much about where we are now in our ongoing human investigations and what we can do with what we've got, but where we've come from, what we've potentially overlooked that could be of use to us and whether we can "reach back" and, considering I view this as impossible (other may argue otherwise), how best to approximate such an operation. In baby steps we know the use of this because science itself is based on this principle. Science creates an attitude, as-if attitude, and objectifies nature dispelling opinion and tries hard to assume nothing.

It is a very deep conundrum. Here I have decided to look at "time" as a subject in this regard. Sadly I think I am alone yet I keep trying to express this more clearly which involves writing longer and longer pieces that are, probably, harder and harder to digest and probably less accessible.

I undertand my interests are my interests though. I have grown to accept that as my blessing and my curse as should we all ... because I say so!! Haha

Btw. When I first came to this forum I kicked up a bit of a fuss about categorising this from that. At this forum though there are some good people with good knowledge. What you were wanting to express in other thread is what I like to bring the "scientific" attitude to explore. The Scientist may not want to say what "truth" is or what is "real", yet their investigations lead to the common perception of such things. To me, for political reasons, this is something important I feel needs to be addressed. For scientific reasons I also say it is important to address (as I hope you see a little in this thread and in what I have tried to present of Husserl in othrr threads).
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Backwards Land

Postby zetreque on January 6th, 2017, 3:57 am 

What you are saying now is different from what I remember this thread first being about.

I just read your long post. :)
If I may try to summarize what I think you said:

-We build knowledge, our ideas, and our perspective over time with experiences.
-We are more open to possibilities as a child because we don't have as much prior experience to base our new experiences on.
-If we could return to a child like state of mind as an adult when thinking, we would be open to more alternatives and possibly innovation.

I have read a couple posts from you on here today and I have to say I am a bit confused by your take on subjective science. To me, it seems like science should be more logic and vulcan (of star trek). Based on reality without subjectivity.

That's why we used statistics so much in science. It's not certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, but based on past numbers, there is a very high likely hood. That's reality. If we were to go to a child like state of mind, we are giving up our history of experiences in reality.

So at the heart of it all I am not asking so much about where we are now in our ongoing human investigations and what we can do with what we've got, but where we've come from, what we've potentially overlooked that could be of use to us and whether we can "reach back" and, considering I view this as impossible (other may argue otherwise), how best to approximate such an operation.


What comes to mind when I read that is probably unrelated but what I think is not "overlooked" but where I think we went wrong looking back at history is religion. Religion threw reality out the window and holds us back to this day (electing certain politicians for example).

Imagination is one of the most powerful things that gives us humanity, but if only people could better differentiate it from reality. If people could see reality, logic, and objective points of view, then purposefully and playfully incorporating a child like imagination for fun concepts like god, dragons, unicorns, or backwards land physics, that's when real progress is made IMO.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2725
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Backwards Land

Postby BadgerJelly on January 6th, 2017, 7:23 am 

I agree about religious institutions in general. Not really important here though.

I have issue with people saying "reality" though in one thread in regard to science and saying reality has nothing to do with science in another.

Reality is just a word used to express something. In general science frames "reality" as physically objectivistic and has done great.

By setting aside our given causal reality I just wanted to look at how we would view the world differently. As, I think you mentioned earlier, the "big bang" was an idea achieved by "playing back" the equations.

Just think about math in reverse. Instead of searching for the answer you'd be looking for the question, much like say ... a cognitive archaeologist would ;) Of course with the answer 6 limiting to whole numbers we would assume one of three possible answers in this reverse situation. Mathematics being univocal has the advantage of not chnaging with regard to time though, number "one" is always number "one" not a different number "one".

If you find a painting on the wall produced 10,000 yrs ago then you have the "answer" but no "question", you create the "question" as best you can and do so by first framing the evidence in a mathematical form. What I am saying is a very similar, yet much, much more obscure process is happening with the physicist too, but the question/answer dynamic is something they are partially conditioned to avoid (and rightly so! It is necessary!).

I don't expect everyone to simply do the exact opposite to what they've been doing all thier lives. I do expect some to at least question themselves and dare to look stupid for the sake of investigation.

I was kind of hoping you and forest would jump on this idea and then drag people like Burt further in. I can but dream! Haha!

Did you read the last bit I wrote of Husserl? Again something there I would have thought an anthropologist could relate to as useful.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Backwards Land

Postby zetreque on January 6th, 2017, 5:42 pm 

I might have a slightly different definition of reality. I'm thinking of a world outside of myself that exists with or without me. I believe a tree falls in the forest and makes a sound when no one is around. That is what I mean by reality. It's not something I create in my head. There is no question or answer about it. It just is and perhaps science is just understanding what is.

I'm not following your other threads or Husserl.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2725
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Backwards Land

Postby BadgerJelly on January 9th, 2017, 1:55 am 

Zet -

No different from my view. I woukd hesitate at using the term "out there" though.

I don't believe that when I leave one country and travek i to another that the country ceases to exist. If war broke out and and the borders and name of the country changed then it would cease to exist. The actual physical land would still be there but the manner in which we would appreciate the country it was now part od would chnage.

Much like viewing the Earth as orbiting the Sun or the Sun orbiting Earth. The physically experienced view does not chnage, but the way we frame the phenomenon does. Just because what we physically sense does not reallu change it does not mean that how we understand it doesn't.

We have come.to understand the world about us through observation and scientific investiagtion. I am asking if certain things would become more or less apparent to humans if they viewed things running backwards? To approach this idea you must bracket your knowledge of things like Newtonian mechanics and frame your experience as being prior to that kind of thought. Then play observations out in reverse and approach the phenomenon as phenomenon.

As an example, a ball rolling down a hill. If in reverse causally we would ask what made the ball roll up the hill? The way see now we'd obviously ask what made the ball roll down the hill?

In our world now we assume some force acted on the ball and then is simply rolled down, because things roll down not up. In backwards world could we really say the same thing? Could we say some force acted on the ball and made it roll up the hill? It appears we could, but it is also apparent that we'd never observe some action that starts the ball rolling up the hill whereas in forward time we may see someone or something kick it or push it. In reverse to takenon this same attitude we'd naïvely say the ground push the ball up the hill. Yet we'd not naturally see such a phenomenon if only exposed to backward world.

It would not occur to the human viewing backward land that the reason fornthe ball being at the bottom of the hill is because someone innthe future pushed it down the hill. They would protest that such is nonsensical as people would today if I was to say the ball rolls down the hill because of where it is going to be rather than saying it rolls down the hill because I pushed it.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Next

Return to Physics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests