Posts by Richard Howard2

Dirty Harry said:I recall reading somewhere—if I'm interpreting Stephen Hawking correctly regarding the laws of large numbers—that the universe behaves in such a way that if you were just walking down a street in Chicago, there is a non-zero chance you might spontaneously drift off into space. You’d essentially just have to wait long enough for it to happen...

Look, while technically possible, the probability is so infinitesimal it's practically zero. It's really just an illustrative concept rather than a literal prediction, used to explain the fundamental nature of the cosmos. We're talking about something that might occur over a span of time we can only describe as infinity...

Pandora said:Fine, let's play it your way... if you're going to be so insistent, then fine. Let's assume you're right.
Does your little "chain of logic" imply that the environment behaves according to mathematical principles? Because if it does... where exactly is this supposed "intelligence" coming from within such mindless matter?
By your own definition, the surroundings behave mathematically—something we supposedly only discovered once we "constructed" a mathematical model of thought. Does that mean the environment is "intelligent," or perhaps even "smarter" than we are? I'd love to see you try to explain that.🙄

Alright, I am seriously considering walking away from this debate with you. But, just so you don't think I'm a coward running away from your "superior" arguments, I'm going to dismantle yours quite easily:

You seem to have some genuine trouble with basic deduction, don't you? Don't be embarrassed; you can admit it...

Generally speaking, first off, the attribute of being "smart" is something created exclusively for humans. In what possible sense do you think nature functions or doesn't function "smartly"?

We all know that an apple is an apple, and that has nothing to do with intelligence. Just because two apples aren't three apples doesn't mean nature is being clever.

Just imagine for a second that nature were actually stupid. Like, you're walking down the street in New York and suddenly you just float away... that sounds more like something out of Monty Python to me.

Nature simply is what it is; it has nothing to do with intellect. Intelligence is merely when you manage to map all conscious behavior onto a universal model—that is, realizing everything boils down to a few fundamental rules. That is how we created mathematics.

Mathematics does not exist out there in our environment! Mathematics is merely a method of our own thinking. So HOW CAN YOU EVEN QUESTION WHETHER NATURE FOLLOWS MATHEMATICS? Mathematics is a language used by our brains to describe the behavior of nature to ourselves. It arose from natural behavior; it isn't that nature knows math and chooses to follow it—even someone with a severe cognitive impairment would realize that!

Oh, goodness, my apologies if I offended you, but I am truly fascinated by how some people struggle so profoundly with logic and simple reasoning...

Rachel Bishop said:Just imagine... that a model of nature would somehow perfectly align with a model of thought? It’s high time, Richard Howard2, that you reconsider this bizarre coincidence.🙄

Good grief, who am I even talking to here? If this doesn't click for you now, then you're truly a lost cause:

Let's try this again, using preschooler logic:

ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR >>> HUMAN OBSERVATION >>> RECOGNIZING PATTERNS IN THAT BEHAVIOR >>> CONSTRUCTING A COGNITIVE MODEL TO MATCH THOSE PATTERNS >>> MATH AND LOGIC

Is it clear enough now? How much more obvious can I possibly make this?

Rachel Bishop said:Richard Howard2... you are making a massive mistake—to your own detriment—by claiming the world around us is disconnected from our consciousness. Geometry and mathematics are PRODUCTS of consciousness, so perhaps give that some thought.😉

I have spent a good deal of time ruminating on this over the last three or four years, and I have come to the conclusion that it simply isn't the case. To be precise: while geometry and mathematics may not exist independently of our thoughts, things in the physical realm move in ways that are "mathematical" and "geometric."

Mathematics and geometry are merely concepts that define a framework for thought, yet through your own lack of insight, you are mistakenly equating them with the subject of thought itself.

This specific framework has proven to be the only one capable of explaining our environment; it exists in its current form precisely because it emerged from the behavior of our surroundings. Is it a human invention? No, it is not.

rapidjackal7 said:Fine, I get where you're coming from. You could plot a graph like that for any object—including ourselves—but there’s a catch. Planets follow strict physical laws, whereas we, along with all other living organisms (even if we operate within those same laws), seem to follow a different set of principles. It makes me wonder: could these two entities—say, our bodies and a planet—be cast into the same cosmic soup within some higher-dimensional reality? Is this perceived distinction just an illusion at our current level of existence, provided every temporal process, including our very lives, can be explained through timeless space?

You're mistaken. Our bodies move according to physical laws just as much as anything else. Every single movement we make can be defined as a physically determined motion, dictated by the anatomical capabilities of our biology. A bodily movement begins with a conscious or unconscious decision, which itself can be reduced to a chemical reaction triggering specific substances to activate muscles for movement. There isn't a single thing in existence that doesn't obey physical laws. Remember that.

This is quite compelling.

The interdependence of space and time is perhaps most intuitively demonstrated through an example—be it practical or purely geometric:

Essentially, the premise holds that time is integrated into space, and vice versa:

Consider this question: what does Earth look like in its orbit around the Sun when you account for its spatial coordinates but set the time coordinate to zero?

The answer: roughly speaking, it is a sphere.

Now, consider this: how does Earth appear in its orbit around the Sun if you include its spatial coordinates along with a time coordinate of 365 days?

The answer: crudely put, it becomes a torus.

It is a shape resembling a tire—essentially a tube looped back upon itself.

As one can see, once you introduce the temporal coordinate, the spatial representation changes entirely. One should recall long-exposure photography. A single day's exposure of the sky with the Sun present would render the Sun as a streak of light across the firmament, rather than a simple circle.

In cosmology, astronomers must invariably incorporate the time coordinate to accurately describe the appearance of the Universe.

Harry said:Reading through everyone's posts here, I find myself thinking that Pandora’s take on this particular question makes the most sense—though, granted, that doesn't necessarily make it correct. 🙂 I've been dwelling on the concept of such a universe lately, and it leaves me with a question for Pandora (though others are certainly welcome to weigh in): Where does our consciousness fit into all of this? Our drive to act, the essence of life itself... if the entirety of time and space within our perceived dimension is strictly defined by nothing more than dry, rigid geometry, then are our lives merely four-dimensional geometric constructs stretched across time? Perhaps that sounds foolish, but the question seems to impose itself logically.

Personally, I don't feel that question imposes itself at all. If something exists outside the flow of time, then we are talking about our thoughts, and by extension, our very lives. We might be able to explain the world surrounding us through geometry and mathematics, but that holds no bearing on our actual consciousness regarding it.

taurus said:Space works a bit differently out there. If someone were traveling at the speed of light, time would move slower for them than it does for us. It doesn't make much sense to me personally, but from what I've heard, it’s scientifically proven.

It actually makes perfect sense, provided one takes the time to study the logic Einstein applied. You can arrive at that conclusion through pure reasoning; honestly, all it requires is a basic high school education, or something in that ballpark...

Michelle Alvarez8 said:If Halle Berry shows up in outfits as skimpy as they were in the first movie, I honestly don't see why I shouldn't sit through the sequel too. 😁

Oh, she will be... just you wait.

By the way, Jennifer Lopez hasn't been much of a heavyweight since she started churning out those tracks about her perfect life and stellar career. It doesn't help that she’s constantly seen trailing behind Ben Affleck, who—let's be honest—is clearly just obsessed with himself. And then there's that scene with LL Cool J smoking in the video; honestly, it does her absolutely no favors...

driftingowl27 said:The topic has drifted into purely hypothetical territory, thanks to the contributors. 🙂

One ought to provide subjects that actually interest people—topics that don't require an exhaustive amount of mental labor. I mean, who actually cares about background set design?

It is the exact same principle when it comes to movies. 😉

driftingowl27 said:Oh, so you think you're "cool" now? 🙂 😁 😁 😁

Yeah, sure. You'll be "cool" right after you sit through another hundred rewatches of Star Wars... no pressure...😉

Look, I followed the old recipe. It worked. I am officially cool now.

on 35mm, Super 35mm, CinemaScope, or if you’re particularly fond of the freeze-frame...

Richard Howard2's....

It’s probably just John Wick being ridiculous. The chat is acting up...

Orion said:How on earth can you compress twenty-odd years—all those memories, photos, life events—into just a second or two?

Time is relative. Einstein said that, and honestly, it’s been repeated so often it’s practically a cliché. But then again, as Max Payne would say, it’s never a cliché when it’s happening to you...

It is actually scientifically possible. If you're traveling near the speed of light, what feels like twenty years to an observer passing by might pass for the traveler in mere seconds.

It’s also possible on a subjective level. If you were to experience every single memory simultaneously—meaning a total, simultaneous activation of all data within the brain—it would essentially feel like a few seconds of reviewing your entire history.

Personally, though, I believe time is something that passes independently of us. Regardless of how we perceive it, we know it exists for one simple reason: its flow manifests in our physical environment. If that weren't the case, we might never even grasp the concept of time itself; we would still experience transience, sure, but everyone would experience it differently, and there would be no agreed-upon system to measure the passage of time. Of course, subjective time is entirely dependent on how our brains function—it comes down to how much our minds register that movement. But what remains certain is that this progression is constant outside of ourselves. No matter how much we *think* time has passed, looking at its physical manifestation tells us how much time has ACTUALLY passed.

I have fond memories of the first installment; it was a pure, unadulterated superhero flick—action, high-tech gadgets, just cool stuff. It was genuinely great. I honestly can't wrap my head around why so many people are calling it garbage. Come on, people, that cast was incredible and the movie really sticks with you, right down to your core!

I’m expecting nothing less than excellence from this sequel. I can hardly wait to get into the theater before the lights even dim...

Brad Pitt is the real deal, honestly one of those rare younger actors who actually possesses genuine charisma. He’s just got that effortless cool about him—handsome, too, and a damn fine actor. If you ask me, after Arnie, he might be the best leading man out there. And besides, I just need to see someone on screen who actually knows how to laugh...

Alright, let's hear it. I want to see your best guesses on how long we have to wait before some studio greenlights a movie about the war in Iraq starring Denzel Washington and gen Hackman...

Initially, I was trying to estimate a timeline for a film centered on 9/11—something with Michael Bay behind the camera—but then it hit me. Those greedy Hollywood producers probably need to wait until the historical revisionism surrounding that horrific tragedy moves out of its current, utterly revolting window...

Orion said:It isn’t about reaching a conclusion; it’s entirely about the experience itself.

Picture this: you're in a car wreck, and suddenly you're ejected from your own body. At first, there is this total disorientation—you can't tell if you're alive or dead, yet you feel present, though everything feels fundamentally different. Then, you find yourself hovering nearby, looking back at your own physical form inside a wrecked vehicle. That's when the reel starts spinning. Twenty-odd years of life begin unspooling at high speed, yet everything remains frozen; every single frame of those two decades compressed into a mere fraction of a second. It all happens simultaneously. A massive weight of lost and rediscovered memories floats up from nowhere, swirling through scenes one after another... twenty-some years passing in what we call a few seconds of "time." Because of that, the void managed to snatch away even more memories from when I was two or three years old. 🙂

So, does time actually exist in that state of consciousness? In such a state, certainly not. There is my proof. It isn't just some vague promise 😉 🙂 .

Impressive. If that is truly how it happened, I suppose I have to admire you, in a way.

However, you are discussing the perception of time here, not time itself. If your definition of time is limited strictly to the sensations occurring within our minds, then fine, I'll grant you that. But I still maintain that time is an objective reality—something our brains simply register as existing and moving forward, regardless of whether we are there to witness it or not.

Brian Doyle86 said:It doesn't exist. I have personally experienced moments where time simply ceases to be a factor. It was more of a shift in consciousness, perhaps, but a realization is a realization 😉 . Though, being subjective...

Could you expand on how you arrived at that conclusion?