The emergence of expeirnce

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2860
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The emergence of expeirnce

Post by bahman » Mon Mar 16, 2020 12:14 am

Dimebag wrote:
Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:37 pm
I still don’t understand the X to Y argument for mind. Bahman, could you please explain the argument in less abstract terms more psychologically and neurobiologically?

For starters, what are these 2 “states of affairs” in terms of a brain, or one’s psychology?

Why must these 2 states of affairs change from one to the other? What is the comparison to what happens in the brain or mind?

How does some intervention or causation of an external entity called mind cause the process to be coherent?
Any motion in the physical world, such as the motion of an electron in the brain, can be explained in terms of the motion of quantum fields. Quantum fields are fundamentals. What is the field? Think temperature in a room. Temperature changes from one place to another so there is a field of temperature at which different temperatures can be assigned to different places. So let's go back to the main topic. In case of the electron, the quantum field is related to the chance of finding of an electron in a location. So let's say that an electron moves in the brain. This motion can be explained as a change in the quantum field X to Y, X and Y are two different forms of the quantum field. Here is where my argument enters. There is a change, therefore, there is a mind. And that is how my argument follows: X has to vanishes before Y is caused otherwise we couldn't have any change. But there is nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore, there must exist a mind that persists to exist and has the ability to experience and cause the quantum field.

Dimebag
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: The emergence of expeirnce

Post by Dimebag » Mon Mar 16, 2020 1:03 pm

bahman wrote:
Mon Mar 16, 2020 12:14 am
Dimebag wrote:
Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:37 pm
I still don’t understand the X to Y argument for mind. Bahman, could you please explain the argument in less abstract terms more psychologically and neurobiologically?

For starters, what are these 2 “states of affairs” in terms of a brain, or one’s psychology?

Why must these 2 states of affairs change from one to the other? What is the comparison to what happens in the brain or mind?

How does some intervention or causation of an external entity called mind cause the process to be coherent?
Any motion in the physical world, such as the motion of an electron in the brain, can be explained in terms of the motion of quantum fields. Quantum fields are fundamentals. What is the field? Think temperature in a room. Temperature changes from one place to another so there is a field of temperature at which different temperatures can be assigned to different places. So let's go back to the main topic. In case of the electron, the quantum field is related to the chance of finding of an electron in a location. So let's say that an electron moves in the brain. This motion can be explained as a change in the quantum field X to Y, X and Y are two different forms of the quantum field. Here is where my argument enters. There is a change, therefore, there is a mind. And that is how my argument follows: X has to vanishes before Y is caused otherwise we couldn't have any change. But there is nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore, there must exist a mind that persists to exist and has the ability to experience and cause the quantum field.
I’m not sure your view is held by anyone in quantum physics. Generally, physicists postulate that minds aren’t required for changes in quantum systems, but rather measurement, which can include measuring instruments or detectors, or even other particles. Why must a mind cause an electron to move. Why must X, being an electron, vanish, so that Y, the second state of the electron can come to be. Why can’t an electron simply change position via whatever mechanism caused it to move or change state?

Do you really think a mind is required for every single particle to do anything in this universe? So what were the particles doing before minds existed? How could minds have ever come into being, had particles relied on them to change state? Or do you think mind existed since the Big Bang, and has been causing everything to happen, essentially like God’s vetoing every act of causality.

God, the biggest micro-manager in the universe :lol:

Sorry buddy, it’s preposterous.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2860
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The emergence of expeirnce

Post by bahman » Mon Mar 16, 2020 11:00 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Mon Mar 16, 2020 1:03 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Mar 16, 2020 12:14 am
Dimebag wrote:
Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:37 pm
I still don’t understand the X to Y argument for mind. Bahman, could you please explain the argument in less abstract terms more psychologically and neurobiologically?

For starters, what are these 2 “states of affairs” in terms of a brain, or one’s psychology?

Why must these 2 states of affairs change from one to the other? What is the comparison to what happens in the brain or mind?

How does some intervention or causation of an external entity called mind cause the process to be coherent?
Any motion in the physical world, such as the motion of an electron in the brain, can be explained in terms of the motion of quantum fields. Quantum fields are fundamentals. What is the field? Think temperature in a room. Temperature changes from one place to another so there is a field of temperature at which different temperatures can be assigned to different places. So let's go back to the main topic. In case of the electron, the quantum field is related to the chance of finding of an electron in a location. So let's say that an electron moves in the brain. This motion can be explained as a change in the quantum field X to Y, X and Y are two different forms of the quantum field. Here is where my argument enters. There is a change, therefore, there is a mind. And that is how my argument follows: X has to vanishes before Y is caused otherwise we couldn't have any change. But there is nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore, there must exist a mind that persists to exist and has the ability to experience and cause the quantum field.
I’m not sure your view is held by anyone in quantum physics.
That is correct. They are missing mind. Why? Because of coherence in motion. As I mentioned there is nothing between X and Y and nothing cannot possibly coherently cause Y considering the fact that X is gone and no information about X could possibly exist in nothing.
Dimebag wrote:
Mon Mar 16, 2020 1:03 pm
Generally, physicists postulate that minds aren’t required for changes in quantum systems, but rather measurement, which can include measuring instruments or detectors, or even other particles.
They are wrong. What we have is a set of interacting minds rather than a set of interacting particles.
Dimebag wrote:
Mon Mar 16, 2020 1:03 pm
Why must a mind cause an electron to move. Why must X, being an electron, vanish, so that Y, the second state of the electron can come to be. Why can’t an electron simply change position via whatever mechanism caused it to move or change state?
Because the simple motion of electron as an entity is a classical picture which is not valid in the quantum scale. As I mentioned we have a quantum field in the small scale and an electron is simply an excitation of a quantum field.
Dimebag wrote:
Mon Mar 16, 2020 1:03 pm
Do you really think a mind is required for every single particle to do anything in this universe?
There are many minds involved in the motion of the cosmos.
Dimebag wrote:
Mon Mar 16, 2020 1:03 pm
So what were the particles doing before minds existed?
There was no moment in which minds didn't exist. Minds have existed since the beginning of time.
Dimebag wrote:
Mon Mar 16, 2020 1:03 pm
How could minds have ever come into being, had particles relied on them to change state?
Mind cannot come into being. Mind simply exists.
Dimebag wrote:
Mon Mar 16, 2020 1:03 pm
Or do you think mind existed since the Big Bang, and has been causing everything to happen, essentially like God’s vetoing every act of causality.
Minds existed since the time of Big Bang.
Dimebag wrote:
Mon Mar 16, 2020 1:03 pm
God, the biggest micro-manager in the universe :lol:

Sorry buddy, it’s preposterous.
There is no God involved in this picture but a collection of minds.

Dimebag
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: The emergence of expeirnce

Post by Dimebag » Wed Mar 18, 2020 11:17 am

bahman wrote:
Mon Mar 16, 2020 11:00 pm
That is correct. They are missing mind. Why? Because of coherence in motion. As I mentioned there is nothing between X and Y and nothing cannot possibly coherently cause Y considering the fact that X is gone and no information about X could possibly exist in nothing.
Please explain what exactly you mean by this statement in plain language, and how it necessitates that minds are an essential part of a quantum system.

Why are minds in such a special position to be able to cause things to happen, what causes minds to do this? How can minds exist in disembodied form, floating in free space when no brains exist to support them?
bahman wrote: What we have is a set of interacting minds rather than a set of interacting particles.
The only way minds can interact is via bodies and different forms of communication transmitted by bodies. There is no evidence of minds interacting telepathically, let alone disembodied minds interacting.
bahman wrote: There are many minds involved in the motion of the cosmos.
What do you have to support this statement?
bahman wrote: There was no moment in which minds didn't exist. Minds have existed since the beginning of time.
I’m starting to really question what EXACTLY you mean by mind? What is your definition of a mind?
bahman wrote: There is no God involved in this picture but a collection of minds.
Yes, a seemingly infinite collection of minds, disembodied, which have no way of interacting with us other than THROUGH the laws of physics. Who needs physics when you have minds which can do it all for us.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2860
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The emergence of expeirnce

Post by bahman » Fri Mar 20, 2020 6:27 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 11:17 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Mar 16, 2020 11:00 pm
That is correct. They are missing mind. Why? Because of coherence in motion. As I mentioned there is nothing between X and Y and nothing cannot possibly coherently cause Y considering the fact that X is gone and no information about X could possibly exist in nothing.
Please explain what exactly you mean by this statement in plain language, and how it necessitates that minds are an essential part of a quantum system.
Consider two states of affair and nothing between in any change. Well, whether nothing can give rise to something is subject of discussion but assume that it is possible to have something out of nothing. Nothing, however, is indifferent so whatever that comes out of it is indifferent too. The reality of change is not indifferent. Therefore, nothing which exists between two states of affair cannot be the cause of a coherent reality. Let me give you an example of the motion of a billiard ball. The ball exist at position X then it moves to position Y. These are two states of affair, X and Y. There is however nothing between as it is discussed. So the question is why we should have the ball in the position of Y or not somewhere else, like Z1, Z2, etc. Nothing does not prefer Y over Zs and vice versa. The ball in simple words can be everywhere. So the question is why always we find the ball at Y rather than something unexpected like Z1 another time in Z2, etc. That means that there is something that makes this possible. It does not only have the ability to cause, but it also makes the reality coherent. It also persists to exist when there nothing.
Dimebag wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 11:17 am
Why are minds in such a special position to be able to cause things to happen, what causes minds to do this?
It is a matter of necessity. No mind, no motion, as it is discussed.
Dimebag wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 11:17 am
How can minds exist in disembodied form, floating in free space when no brains exist to support them?
It is a matter of necessity, there is nothing between two states of affair from materialistic point of view. No matter, no mind. There must exist something that persists to exist when there is no matter.
Dimebag wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 11:17 am
bahman wrote: What we have is a set of interacting minds rather than a set of interacting particles.
The only way minds can interact is via bodies and different forms of communication transmitted by bodies. There is no evidence of minds interacting telepathically, let alone disembodied minds interacting.
The information of course spread between minds through a medium so-called matter.
Dimebag wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 11:17 am
bahman wrote: There are many minds involved in the motion of the cosmos.
What do you have to support this statement?
There are changes that you are no responsible for it. Therefore there is at least one mind more. I don't have any simple argument for many minds. It just seems so, there are many agents.
Dimebag wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 11:17 am
bahman wrote: There was no moment in which minds didn't exist. Minds have existed since the beginning of time.
I’m starting to really question what EXACTLY you mean by mind? What is your definition of a mind?
By mind I mean the essence of any being that has ability to experience, decide and cause. What I am doing right now, I experience what you said, I then decide what to write and then finally cause, write.
Dimebag wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 11:17 am
bahman wrote: There is no God involved in this picture but a collection of minds.
Yes, a seemingly infinite collection of minds, disembodied, which have no way of interacting with us other than THROUGH the laws of physics. Who needs physics when you have minds which can do it all for us.
No mind, no coherence, no physics.
Last edited by bahman on Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

nothing
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: The emergence of expeirnce

Post by nothing » Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:35 am

bahman wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:05 pm
Let's assume that the emergence of experience is possible. That means that mater in the raw form doesn't have such property, experience.

Problem: line must be drawn wherever (whatever) "experience" (is) begins, let alone defining it. Experience can be either: conscious and/or unconscious, thus begs a definition of consciousness (thus to discern lack of) such to even begin to approach defining "experience".
bahman wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:05 pm
Mater, however, has specific properties in the raw form.
It has no less property(s) than any "thing"(s) of further complexity: what is of the micro is of the macro, and vice versa.
bahman wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:05 pm
Mater is believed to become conscious when it has a specific form, form of alive being.
Same as above, thus begs what being 'alive' entails. Human beings only speculate what 'life' is relative to their own experience of it. Why should the universe prefer/conform to the limitations of present-day species, especially considering it is obvious far-ancient peoples were generally more sophisticated and had enough 'time' to observe/catalogue the precession of the equinoxes and related celestial movements? Today, one can hardly see the sky for the pollution and chem trails.
bahman wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:05 pm
The raw properties, however, are conserved under different forms of mater. So, the new property, experience, is the result of the formation of mater only and not as a mix of the raw properties. This means that mater out of nowhere gets new property because of formation. This is absurd within materialism.
It is not 'out of nowhere' but again: there are 'raw properties' that transcend space and time entirely. For example, if instead of using a relative speed of light (such as modern-day science) one sets the speed of light as unity '1' all matter is merely some particular displacement(s) therefrom. Because atomic structure is motion-based, particles are actually particular configurations of motion in some relation, and the interaction of these relations is what gives the 'form' of the cosmos: both physical and metaphysical. This implies there is must be a transcendental axes that effectively bridges the two, thus must have efficacy in both, transcending the physical into the metaphysical.

Materialism is essentially the denial of the metaphysical, despite ironically the metaphysical being the upside-down of the physical. A proper arithmetic/geometric expression capturing the motion-based relation must be expressed in terms of space about time, thus v = s/t. Whereas motion is s/t, the corresponding energy behind that same motion (indiscriminately) is t/s as energy. Therefor there is only one constituency: motion, thus space and time are both and each multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion. This means that time can never be independent of space and/or vice versa, and further yet, time, like space, also has 3 dimensions.

v = s/t as velocity
e = t/s as energy
s³/t = physical
t³/s = metaphysical
s²/t² = plane at unity

All non-scalar energy resides in potentiality,
manifestation (motion) actually occurs in-as
space over time according to the constituency
of the body(s) concerned.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2860
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The emergence of expeirnce

Post by bahman » Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:10 pm

nothing wrote:
Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:35 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:05 pm
Let's assume that the emergence of experience is possible. That means that mater in the raw form doesn't have such property, experience.
Problem: line must be drawn wherever (whatever) "experience" (is) begins, let alone defining it. Experience can be either: conscious and/or unconscious, thus begs a definition of consciousness (thus to discern lack of) such to even begin to approach defining "experience".
The experience is not a being instead an ability of mind. You experience when your mind sees.
nothing wrote:
Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:35 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:05 pm
Mater, however, has specific properties in the raw form.
It has no less property(s) than any "thing"(s) of further complexity: what is of the micro is of the macro, and vice versa.
Yes. The number of properties of raw material is equal to the complex one.
nothing wrote:
Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:35 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:05 pm
Mater is believed to become conscious when it has a specific form, form of alive being.
Same as above, thus begs what being 'alive' entails. Human beings only speculate what 'life' is relative to their own experience of it. Why should the universe prefer/conform to the limitations of present-day species, especially considering it is obvious far-ancient peoples were generally more sophisticated and had enough 'time' to observe/catalogue the precession of the equinoxes and related celestial movements? Today, one can hardly see the sky for the pollution and chem trails.
Something that experiences is minimally alive.
nothing wrote:
Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:35 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:05 pm
The raw properties, however, are conserved under different forms of mater. So, the new property, experience, is the result of the formation of mater only and not as a mix of the raw properties. This means that mater out of nowhere gets new property because of formation. This is absurd within materialism.
It is not 'out of nowhere' but again: there are 'raw properties' that transcend space and time entirely. For example, if instead of using a relative speed of light (such as modern-day science) one sets the speed of light as unity '1' all matter is merely some particular displacement(s) therefrom. Because atomic structure is motion-based, particles are actually particular configurations of motion in some relation, and the interaction of these relations is what gives the 'form' of the cosmos: both physical and metaphysical. This implies there is must be a transcendental axes that effectively bridges the two, thus must have efficacy in both, transcending the physical into the metaphysical.

Materialism is essentially the denial of the metaphysical, despite ironically the metaphysical being the upside-down of the physical. A proper arithmetic/geometric expression capturing the motion-based relation must be expressed in terms of space about time, thus v = s/t. Whereas motion is s/t, the corresponding energy behind that same motion (indiscriminately) is t/s as energy. Therefor there is only one constituency: motion, thus space and time are both and each multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion. This means that time can never be independent of space and/or vice versa, and further yet, time, like space, also has 3 dimensions.

v = s/t as velocity
e = t/s as energy
s³/t = physical
t³/s = metaphysical
s²/t² = plane at unity

All non-scalar energy resides in potentiality,
manifestation (motion) actually occurs in-as
space over time according to the constituency
of the body(s) concerned.
No. Your definition in many parts are wrong. Energy is s^2/mt^2.

nothing
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: The emergence of expeirnce

Post by nothing » Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:31 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:10 pm
The experience is not a being instead an ability of mind. You experience when your mind sees.
Experience is not an ability of mind, it is corollary of consciousness: the mind is distinctly separate
because it is a discerning agency. Upon death the mind (ie. ability to discern) is forfeit.
bahman wrote:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:10 pm
No. Your definition in many parts are wrong. Energy is s^2/mt^2
That would be Western science that is wrong:
it does not acknowledge the relationship
space and time have with one another
as being multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion,
let alone even knowing either energy or mass actually are.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2860
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The emergence of expeirnce

Post by bahman » Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:25 pm

nothing wrote:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:31 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:10 pm
The experience is not a being instead an ability of mind. You experience when your mind sees.
Experience is not an ability of mind, it is corollary of consciousness: the mind is distinctly separate
because it is a discerning agency. Upon death the mind (ie. ability to discern) is forfeit.
There is no death, instead a transition from one to another state of mind.
nothing wrote:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:31 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:10 pm
No. Your definition in many parts are wrong. Energy is s^2/mt^2
That would be Western science that is wrong:
it does not acknowledge the relationship
space and time have with one another
as being multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion,
let alone even knowing either energy or mass actually are.
What is mass?

nothing
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: The emergence of expeirnce

Post by nothing » Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:50 pm

bahman wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:25 pm
There is no death, instead a transition from one to another state of mind.
Any such transition need not discount death:
the mind loses discernment upon death,
the momentum of the life leaving
continues in the same direction
but lacking the ability to discern.
bahman wrote:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:10 pm
What is mass?
Mass is analogous to weight in motion. Mass implies both a constituency (ie. a weight)
and a speed/velocity it is traveling. Both of these is what is measured as "mass".

In reality what should be mass is actually weight, and it should be calculated independent of motion
which requires a relatively fixed datum. This can be the speed of light, however Western science
hasn't yet figured out light does not have a speed, it has a rate of induction. It only appears relative
to have a speed, because everything else is moving in relation to light, which is itself not moving.

If setting the speed of light c to 1 this problem goes away such that all physical phenomena that has a "weight"
is calculated as a displacement from the speed of light, according to the gravity of its own constituency.

This is generally true from stellar evolution to human evolution: every body carries with/as them the gravity of their own constituency.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2860
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The emergence of expeirnce

Post by bahman » Fri Mar 27, 2020 7:33 pm

nothing wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:50 pm
bahman wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:25 pm
There is no death, instead a transition from one to another state of mind.
Any such transition need not discount death:
the mind loses discernment upon death,
the momentum of the life leaving
continues in the same direction
but lacking the ability to discern.
You shall see layers of realities. Death is the state between in which you travel from one reality to another one.
nothing wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:50 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:10 pm
What is mass?
Mass is analogous to weight in motion. Mass implies both a constituency (ie. a weight)
and a speed/velocity it is traveling. Both of these is what is measured as "mass".

In reality what should be mass is actually weight, and it should be calculated independent of motion
which requires a relatively fixed datum. This can be the speed of light, however Western science
hasn't yet figured out light does not have a speed, it has a rate of induction. It only appears relative
to have a speed, because everything else is moving in relation to light, which is itself not moving.

If setting the speed of light c to 1 this problem goes away such that all physical phenomena that has a "weight"
is calculated as a displacement from the speed of light, according to the gravity of its own constituency.

This is generally true from stellar evolution to human evolution: every body carries with/as them the gravity of their own constituency.
Mass is not analogous to weight in motion. Weight is a property of something massive.

nothing
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: The emergence of expeirnce

Post by nothing » Fri Mar 27, 2020 8:48 pm

nothing wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:50 pm
Mass is not analogous to weight in motion. Weight is a property of something massive.
Other way around: weight precedes mass, weight moves to produce "mass"
but is only relativistic mass, not absolute. Mass is relatively meaningless.
Modern-day stellar evolution is similarly precisely backwards as well:
their star evolution is literally upside-down.
Descartes' "I think therefor I am..." is also precisely backwards/upside-down.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2860
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The emergence of expeirnce

Post by bahman » Fri Mar 27, 2020 10:48 pm

nothing wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 8:48 pm
nothing wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:50 pm
Mass is not analogous to weight in motion. Weight is a property of something massive.
Other way around: weight precedes mass, weight moves to produce "mass"
but is only relativistic mass, not absolute. Mass is relatively meaningless.
Modern-day stellar evolution is similarly precisely backwards as well:
their star evolution is literally upside-down.
Descartes' "I think therefor I am..." is also precisely backwards/upside-down.
No. Weight is the result of mass exposure to an acceleration.

nothing
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: The emergence of expeirnce

Post by nothing » Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:29 pm

bahman wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 10:48 pm
nothing wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 8:48 pm
nothing wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:50 pm
Mass is not analogous to weight in motion. Weight is a property of something massive.
Other way around: weight precedes mass, weight moves to produce "mass"
but is only relativistic mass, not absolute. Mass is relatively meaningless.
Modern-day stellar evolution is similarly precisely backwards as well:
their star evolution is literally upside-down.
Descartes' "I think therefor I am..." is also precisely backwards/upside-down.
No. Weight is the result of mass exposure to an acceleration.
Agree to disagree:

if weight=yes, then
+motion=mass
captured by v=s/t
wherein mass is
relatively arbitrary.

The weight (and resulting gravity) of a body is a product of its own constituency,
thus if not for the constituency itself as a weight, no gravity
such to retrieve a relative mass exists.

Mass is only relative to the acceleration to/of a body
as it concerns the discrete weight of the same body.
Because gravity is an acceleration, not a force,
the weight of a body generates an inward acceleration
(static: scalar magnitude) whence to measure any relative mass.

In other words: the "mass" of anything measured on (or using) the earth
is only relative to the particular acceleration of the earth, whereas the weight
of the same item is fixed as a metric producing relative "masses"
according to the gravity of the planet/datum it is weighed on/against.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2860
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The emergence of expeirnce

Post by bahman » Sat Mar 28, 2020 8:22 pm

nothing wrote:
Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:29 pm
bahman wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 10:48 pm
nothing wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 8:48 pm


Other way around: weight precedes mass, weight moves to produce "mass"
but is only relativistic mass, not absolute. Mass is relatively meaningless.
Modern-day stellar evolution is similarly precisely backwards as well:
their star evolution is literally upside-down.
Descartes' "I think therefor I am..." is also precisely backwards/upside-down.
No. Weight is the result of mass exposure to an acceleration.
Agree to disagree:

if weight=yes, then
+motion=mass
captured by v=s/t
wherein mass is
relatively arbitrary.

The weight (and resulting gravity) of a body is a product of its own constituency,
thus if not for the constituency itself as a weight, no gravity
such to retrieve a relative mass exists.

Mass is only relative to the acceleration to/of a body
as it concerns the discrete weight of the same body.
Because gravity is an acceleration, not a force,
the weight of a body generates an inward acceleration
(static: scalar magnitude) whence to measure any relative mass.

In other words: the "mass" of anything measured on (or using) the earth
is only relative to the particular acceleration of the earth, whereas the weight
of the same item is fixed as a metric producing relative "masses"
according to the gravity of the planet/datum it is weighed on/against.
You cannot use weight as a unit because it changes.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests