Help kinda. In need of intellectual conversation please.

[dogman6126]

Ok, so I'm from a rural area, and I have literally no one to talk to about philosophy and science. I have one friend to talk about religion with, but because of our varying perspectives, there's only so much to discuss before it dissolves to the fundamental differences between what we each think. Hard to expand beyond that. I'm just out of my first year of college (at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) and during that year I fell in love with philosophy and psychology. Any time I had a topic to discuss I didn't have to go far for a good discussion. One of my roommates was an excellent debater and probably better than me at philosophy (very exciting). Now that I'm back home, I am once again without someone to debate with. So, would anyone here by any chance enjoy having some intellectual conversations in philosophy or science? I'm bad at starting topics, but once I get started, I really enjoy it.

My specialties are theoretical physics, especially astronomy. A little bit in particle physics. I love psychology as well, but unless I'm trying to explain the motivations of something or trying to help someone, it's not quite as interesting to me. That's why its harder on this forum. I'm also versed in basic medicine and chemistry, and moderately so in mathematics (although that's not as enjoyable to me). In mathematics, I more enjoy number theory from philosophy.
In philosophy, I love to debate it, but I'm woefully inadequate when it comes to individual philosophers. Most of what I know is what I have figured out on my own. I have read a few books of Aristotle and Plato (owing to one semester of philosophy).

Sooooo.....I would greatly enjoy if anyone would like to start a conversation or multiple conversations in any of those topics. I'd also be happy to venture off in other subjects, It's just I'm not so well versed in other topics, and my discussion will likely reflect that. However I would relish the opportunity to learn if it is within the realm of science or philosophy. I just would like some more intellectual stimulation than I am getting right now, and I prefer talking with other people. Anyone is welcome to join in on the discussion as well!

 

[say what]

I would suggest you create a thread on a particular question/topic in the area that you like to discuss...perhaps stemming from an article or link! Seems to me that a lot of people here enjoy that type of discussion

 

[the]

So you know this is a forum, right? Peruse our old threads or start a new one. If it doesnt suck there will be a lot of discussing going on.

 

[dogman6126]

I'm terrible at coming up with new ideas of what to talk to. My friends always start the conversation.

I have looked at past threads and tried starting a few (with mixed results). I was hoping someone else had an interesting idea they might want to just through out there and we can start a conversation. I gave some suggestions of preferred subject matter. Anyone interested?

 

[Eventhorizon]

What is "Theoretical physics? " Astronomy? Partical physics?

 

[aureliusandoinky]

I bet you'll find something around here that will spark your interest. I'm taking an ethics class this summer, so I'm getting my first real experience with philosophy. Apparently I am terrible at providing evidence for my beliefs but am a strong writer/debater. It's exciting to improve though!

 

[dogman6126]

What is "Theoretical physics? " Astronomy? Partical physics?

In relation to my interests, stuff ranging from black hole physics to planetary creation theories. Before I choose to switch to psychology, I was studying to be an astrophysicist. I have a strong interest in the big bang theory, quantum physics, and temporal logic (not sure what else to call this, but thought experiments relating to time travel is what I mean). Particle physics I was more referring to quantum dynamics (double-slit experiment, other quantum effects, *these are highly complicated, I am only an early beginner at best on this topic, however I love reading and thinking about it*), and some kinds of atomic and subatomic interactions (fundamental forces kind of thing). Other things relevant to these topics I love reading about and would enjoy discussing them if anyone else is interested

 

[dogman6126]

I bet you'll find something around here that will spark your interest. I'm taking an ethics class this summer, so I'm getting my first real experience with philosophy. Apparently I am terrible at providing evidence for my beliefs but am a strong writer/debater. It's exciting to improve though!

I think I'll have an ethics class in 2 years (that's when my schedule will allow). However I love to just discuss it.

Perhaps you would like to debate some contemporary ethical issues?

 

[Eventhorizon]

In relation to my interests, stuff ranging from black hole physics to planetary creation theories. Before I choose to switch to psychology, I was studying to be an astrophysicist. I have a strong interest in the big bang theory, quantum physics, and temporal logic (not sure what else to call this, but thought experiments relating to time travel is what I mean). Particle physics I was more referring to quantum dynamics (double-slit experiment, other quantum effects, *these are highly complicated, I am only an early beginner at best on this topic, however I love reading and thinking about it*), and some kinds of atomic and subatomic interactions (fundamental forces kind of thing). Other things relevant to these topics I love reading about and would enjoy discussing them if anyone else is interested

Hmmm... what do you think of quantum tunneling being one of the main components that makes stars work?

 

[Lerxst]

When it comes to astrophysics, my favorite topic has always been SETI or intelligent life. Here's the conundrum I see people facing - we only know of carbon-based lifeforms. For instance take the clouds and Red spot on Jupiter. It's still a mystery to us. We can only theorize what causes them and creates the atmosphere. But we're also looking at it from a carbon-based perspective.

What if we encountered a (I forgot the composition of Jupiter's atmosphere but for argument sake...) methane-based life form? To us, all we might see is a cloud. We would try to explain that cloud, what it does, why it does it, etc. but not actually know or think of it as intelligent. The reason clouds move with the wind? Because physics says they have to; the same as we move with gravity. Clouds might look at us and see "rocks" that fall with gravity, like we see gas that rises through an atmosphere.

How about a life form based on silicone? Would we ever be able to identify a sentient rock in our search for life?

It makes you wonder how much intelligent life there really is in the universe that we're just too ignorant to identify.

 

[Nixie]

Seems like you should stop making other people responsible for engaging your mind with stimulating conversation. It is the error of youth the arbitrarily assign value to conversation according to one's own ideals. Just as you are hesitant to engage in being the one to start conversations, you might need to waste some time chewing the fat over trivial stuff before the people around your want to engage in deeper levels of conversation. Never look to discredit other people's wisdom because it doesn't fit into your perceived ideal of philosophy and whatnot. Sometimes the deepest wisdom comes from offhand comments that people camouflage as everyday conversation.

Also, it seems that you are doing a fine job of starting a conversation about things that interest you. I would learn to see yourself for what you can do rather that what you are incapable of doing. This was one of the nicest "let's talk" thread I have ever seen produced round these parts. You seem very congenial and friendly which are ideal traits to have if you wish to foster lively conversation. Now, just work on not selling yourself short.

/end unwanted advice

 

[dogman6126]

Hmmm... what do you think of quantum tunneling being one of the main components that makes stars work?

I'm afraid that I don't know very much about quantum tunneling. The most I know about it is how it works in the most general sense. By considering a particle in terms of a wave rather than a particle, the wave does not undergo a normal collision like most matter would. By considering the matter as a wave, the wave can pass through another particle of matter's resistance (that being the resistance of electromagnetic forces like electron-electron or proton-proton resistance). I had to read up a little on the way this effects a star. I can see how this can cause fusion, seeing as this would technically allow one piece of matter to basically ignore the resistance of another piece of matter and meet to fuse. However without knowing what causes the matter to act more like a wave at one time and more like a particle at another time while in a star, I have no idea how likely such an incident would be. I doubt it would be common like whether or not it is observed for the double-slit experiment. It couldn't be to common because if every particle of matter, or even a large amount of this matter in a star where to act as a wave, then the star would reasonably collapse or decrease in size proportional to the amount of matter behaving like a wave.
As the matter acts as a wave, it loose the force of resistance of the electromagnetic interactions, but maintains the gravitational force. In a star (assuming medium-large star, smaller stars might have a different dynamic that holds against the gravity), it is the pressure of the electromagnetic force that holds the matter of the star "up" against gravity and prevents a black hole from forming. If too much of the matter in a star where to act as a wave, the star would collapse either to a smaller size until that matter reverts back to its "normal" state at which point the star would expand very quickly. I would question if such a reaction would rip a star apart. It would certainly be very violent...depending on rates of change and stuff like that of course. I'm not for sure though.
Overall, the effect would depend on what causes the matter to act like a wave. As long as the effect is constant, meaning at any two given times the amount of matter acting as a wave is the same, then the effect would not cause sudden expansions and depressions. I don't know enough on this topic lol.

I looked up the effect and found this. Don't know how reliable it is, but it's simple, so I was able to understand it....mostly lol.
http://www.astro.soton.ac.uk/~pac/PH112/notes/notes/node112.html

This is a new idea to me. I like it. However in a first look at the idea, I doubt it would be a main driving force for stellar fusion. I find the concept of random chance collisions where two protons have enough kinetic energy to overcome the electromagnetic interaction more likely. Of course I don't know how much variance in kinetic energy exists between any two protons in a stars core, and I also don't fully understand the driving force of this conversion to a more wavelike nature for the matter in quantum tunneling. That page I noted talked about it had to do with increased kinetic energy which also means increased temperature. Both of these theories seem to say the same cause and result but different methods. Very interesting. Actually I'm not for sure which I find more likely....
What's your opinion?

 

[Eventhorizon]

Ill try to respond more in depth later. For now, I was driving down the road this morning and noticed a spot on the windshield. When veiwed in relation to the car in front of me the spot appeared to "jump" from place to place much like I imagine a sub atomic particle does. It then occurred to me that particals are likely not simply popping into existence as science likes to imply they are these days. More likely it is only our relative perspective that makes it seem so.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I'm afraid that I don't know very much about quantum tunneling. The most I know about it is how it works in the most general sense. By considering a particle in terms of a wave rather than a particle, the wave does not undergo a normal collision like most matter would. By considering the matter as a wave, the wave can pass through another particle of matter's resistance (that being the resistance of electromagnetic forces like electron-electron or proton-proton resistance). I had to read up a little on the way this effects a star. I can see how this can cause fusion, seeing as this would technically allow one piece of matter to basically ignore the resistance of another piece of matter and meet to fuse. However without knowing what causes the matter to act more like a wave at one time and more like a particle at another time while in a star, I have no idea how likely such an incident would be. I doubt it would be common like whether or not it is observed for the double-slit experiment. It couldn't be to common because if every particle of matter, or even a large amount of this matter in a star where to act as a wave, then the star would reasonably collapse or decrease in size proportional to the amount of matter behaving like a wave.
As the matter acts as a wave, it loose the force of resistance of the electromagnetic interactions, but maintains the gravitational force. In a star (assuming medium-large star, smaller stars might have a different dynamic that holds against the gravity), it is the pressure of the electromagnetic force that holds the matter of the star "up" against gravity and prevents a black hole from forming. If too much of the matter in a star where to act as a wave, the star would collapse either to a smaller size until that matter reverts back to its "normal" state at which point the star would expand very quickly. I would question if such a reaction would rip a star apart. It would certainly be very violent...depending on rates of change and stuff like that of course. I'm not for sure though.
Overall, the effect would depend on what causes the matter to act like a wave. As long as the effect is constant, meaning at any two given times the amount of matter acting as a wave is the same, then the effect would not cause sudden expansions and depressions. I don't know enough on this topic lol.

I looked up the effect and found this. Don't know how reliable it is, but it's simple, so I was able to understand it....mostly lol.
http://www.astro.soton.ac.uk/~pac/PH112/notes/notes/node112.html

This is a new idea to me. I like it. However in a first look at the idea, I doubt it would be a main driving force for stellar fusion. I find the concept of random chance collisions where two protons have enough kinetic energy to overcome the electromagnetic interaction more likely. Of course I don't know how much variance in kinetic energy exists between any two protons in a stars core, and I also don't fully understand the driving force of this conversion to a more wavelike nature for the matter in quantum tunneling. That page I noted talked about it had to do with increased kinetic energy which also means increased temperature. Both of these theories seem to say the same cause and result but different methods. Very interesting. Actually I'm not for sure which I find more likely....
What's your opinion?

Science currently accepts quantum tunneling as part of the engine that drives stellar fusion. So theres that.

 

[dogman6126]

When it comes to astrophysics, my favorite topic has always been SETI or intelligent life. Here's the conundrum I see people facing - we only know of carbon-based lifeforms. For instance take the clouds and Red spot on Jupiter. It's still a mystery to us. We can only theorize what causes them and creates the atmosphere. But we're also looking at it from a carbon-based perspective.

What if we encountered a (I forgot the composition of Jupiter's atmosphere but for argument sake...) methane-based life form? To us, all we might see is a cloud. We would try to explain that cloud, what it does, why it does it, etc. but not actually know or think of it as intelligent. The reason clouds move with the wind? Because physics says they have to; the same as we move with gravity. Clouds might look at us and see "rocks" that fall with gravity, like we see gas that rises through an atmosphere.

How about a life form based on silicone? Would we ever be able to identify a sentient rock in our search for life?

It makes you wonder how much intelligent life there really is in the universe that we're just too ignorant to identify.

Yes, intelligent life is a very interesting subject.
For the clouds on Jupiter, it would be hard to say that they would be sentient. But the basis for my opinion is on several assumptions. The first and most important being I think intelligence/sentience is an emergent property of highly complex systems that transfer information. I think that when a system is complicated enough it becomes a system of itself and can eventually think for itself. However the kind of systems I see this developing in would be static systems that can transfer information and can change itself (add or subtract). Static because a change in the system will create a completely new sentience, hardly consistent with the continuity of life concept (however still theoretically possible), transferring information is what makes it work, and changing itself because growth is also a part of life I think (not necessarily biological growth).
This concept leads to many possible forms in which intelligence can exist. Actually the medium does not necessarily matter in this concept, only that it can change naturally, exchange information between its sub-parts, and be highly complicated. This is why I think a computer can become complicated enough to become "alive". This is the broadest idea of life that I can think of. If you have more ideas, I'd be glad to discuss them .
This idea makes it hard for me to think a cloud can be sentient. However, life's general pattern is growth. Also the general pattern is that something complicated comes from something less complicated, and with that a relatively smooth transition between. This is the concept of evolution in its broadest sense. This concept is derived from the concept of growth being a part of life. So we must also accept that (assuming chemical cause and not direct divine intervention) that whatever sentient life that exists must be chemically derived. So a complex system that must be derived from common/basic chemicals. That's why silicon based life is a common second to carbon because silicon has very similar chemical properties to carbon, however carbon is better at bonding with other elements and itself than silicon, that's why carbon life is more likely.

Lets assume like you said the clouds were sentient and looking at us. Your right, if all they saw was us as rocks and that we fall to the earth like gravity, but how would they explain when we jump up? or when we move other rocks where we want them? Or how we can take rocks and make us fly? The intelligent construction on this planet should be visible to any physical intelligent life. The clouds however do not modify other clouds. The clouds do not break the general rules of wind causing their motion (like we kinda do gravity when we jump).

Back to a silicon based life form, they might not be just a rock. They could develop as bipedal humanoid theoretically. More likely just an odd plant like (meaning capable of photosynthesis) or basic animal. Microbial is always the most likely though. The only difference would be chemically they would be different. Instead of carbon, they would be silicon base, and a few other chemicals would be exchanged I think. I don't know the theories on silicone base life that intricately. All the same, I don't think it would develop as just a rock and that rock be sentient. Again, a fundamental component of life is growth, and for anything that is not a single life form growing, then it needs to be able to reproduce. Really the possibilities are endless for basic forms of life. As for intelligent life, yes I think we would notice it. Intelligent life would likely be noticeable for the same reason that we would be noticeable. Construction, manipulation, and other general patterns unique to intelligent life.

Of course there are limitations. If intelligent life does exist elsewhere, and it is so extremely foreign to us in any number of ways, it is very likely that we might not notice it as you suggest. It is unfortunate, but the truth is we don't know everything

Also this all does assume that intelligent life does exist elsewhere. After all, we have no proof, and no evidence to support such a conclusion beyond our own existence. One data point is hardly enough to base such a conclusion as the commonality of intelligent life. I'm sure that you, like me, would like for other intelligent life to exist out there, preferably similar to us (or maybe dissimilar in a way that is better, meaning more peaceful).

Very interesting topic to think about, I'm glad you brought it up. How common do you think (or believe/want to believe) life and intelligent life is?

 

[dogman6126]

Seems like you should stop making other people responsible for engaging your mind with stimulating conversation. It is the error of youth the arbitrarily assign value to conversation according to one's own ideals. Just as you are hesitant to engage in being the one to start conversations, you might need to waste some time chewing the fat over trivial stuff before the people around your want to engage in deeper levels of conversation. Never look to discredit other people's wisdom because it doesn't fit into your perceived ideal of philosophy and whatnot. Sometimes the deepest wisdom comes from offhand comments that people camouflage as everyday conversation.

By listing what subjects I enjoy discussing or have studied to some reasonable degree (and enjoy) in the past, my intent was only to look for another with similar interests and spark a conversation in that way. I did not mean to sound as if I was assigning any kind of value on this specific type of conversation. As for discredit based on disagreement of my perceived ideals, I would never intend to do such a thing. That would be illogical. I would admit to looking for evidence to support my claim, but I would also listen to the evidence of the opposing view point. No science would ever get done if opposing view points were never considered. Ineffective and illogical. However some bias will definitely be introduced, as I suspect that is what you are referring to. No one is perfect after all, and I am no exception. All in all, I do my best to eliminate such bias, but I understand I am not perfect. Are you referring to any case in particular, or just a general warning?

Also, it seems that you are doing a fine job of starting a conversation about things that interest you. I would learn to see yourself for what you can do rather that what you are incapable of doing. This was one of the nicest "let's talk" thread I have ever seen produced round these parts. You seem very congenial and friendly which are ideal traits to have if you wish to foster lively conversation. Now, just work on not selling yourself short.

I greatly appreciate your kind words. However, I don't know that I would say that I see myself for what I am incapable of doing. I try to work hard to find/know the limits of my knowledge. I see those as opportunities to grow, not limitations if that is what you mean.

/end unwanted advice

Hardly unwanted. Advice is always welcome so long as it is kindly offered

 

[Keirouen]

Ok, so I'm from a rural area, and I have literally no one to talk to about philosophy and science. I have one friend to talk about religion with, but because of our varying perspectives, there's only so much to discuss before it dissolves to the fundamental differences between what we each think. Hard to expand beyond that. I'm just out of my first year of college (at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) and during that year I fell in love with philosophy and psychology. Any time I had a topic to discuss I didn't have to go far for a good discussion. One of my roommates was an excellent debater and probably better than me at philosophy (very exciting). Now that I'm back home, I am once again without someone to debate with. So, would anyone here by any chance enjoy having some intellectual conversations in philosophy or science? I'm bad at starting topics, but once I get started, I really enjoy it.

My specialties are theoretical physics, especially astronomy. A little bit in particle physics. I love psychology as well, but unless I'm trying to explain the motivations of something or trying to help someone, it's not quite as interesting to me. That's why its harder on this forum. I'm also versed in basic medicine and chemistry, and moderately so in mathematics (although that's not as enjoyable to me). In mathematics, I more enjoy number theory from philosophy.
In philosophy, I love to debate it, but I'm woefully inadequate when it comes to individual philosophers. Most of what I know is what I have figured out on my own. I have read a few books of Aristotle and Plato (owing to one semester of philosophy).

Sooooo.....I would greatly enjoy if anyone would like to start a conversation or multiple conversations in any of those topics. I'd also be happy to venture off in other subjects, It's just I'm not so well versed in other topics, and my discussion will likely reflect that. However I would relish the opportunity to learn if it is within the realm of science or philosophy. I just would like some more intellectual stimulation than I am getting right now, and I prefer talking with other people. Anyone is welcome to join in on the discussion as well!

I suggest you start several interesting topics about theoretical physics concepts that might one day be harnessed by us humans and used to further our technology.

Or let's just go straight into quantum mechanics... I just don't like all the math. I understand plenty of concepts but writing out equations all day long sounds depressing.

Philosophy is great too so let's combine theoretical physics with philosophical implications! Good luck