April 5th, 2013, 09:12 PM
Basically in a scenario where there exists only one body, without any other for it to be relative to, can time still pass in a scenario like this?
By time "passing" I mean in the sense that time only "passes" because of motion.
I thought of this because if theres only one body, it means that it is at rest relative to itself, no matter if it's in motion or not. If the only body in existance is at rest, does that mean that time "stops"?
Last edited by Rizols; April 5th, 2013 at 09:35 PM.
A circadian rhythm (pron.: /sɜrˈkeɪdiən/) is any biological process that displays an endogenous, entrainable oscillation of about 24 hours. These rhythms are driven by a circadian clock, and rhythms have been widely observed in plants, animals, fungi and cyanobacteria. The term circadian comes from the Latin circa, meaning "around" (or "approximately"), and diem or dies, meaning "day". The formal study of biological temporal rhythms, such as daily, tidal, weekly, seasonal, and annual rhythms, is called chronobiology. Although circadian rhythms are endogenous ("built-in", self-sustained), they are adjusted (entrained) to the local environment by external cues called zeitgebers, commonly the most important of which is daylight.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=circadian&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja &sqi=2&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia .org%2Fwiki%2FCircadian_rhythm&ei=4IJfUYwbgvr1BI7G gIAK&usg=AFQjCNFF-gh_3dqjMCJ-SW2LDQyr8_IlvA
Would the circadian rhythm be altered by a change in sunlight pattern? I.E, the month of darkness in the northern regions of Canada?Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
Rizols,
Of course this is a hypothetical question. The answer depends upon the definition of time. Unfortunately there is no standard model definition of time, but the simplest definition is that time is "an interval of change." This definition alone can contradict quantum theory, but the theory offers no concensus alternative definition.If there exists only one body, can time pass?
But according to this definition the elementary structure of a singular body (vastly simpler than an electron, just a sphere) would need some sub-structure or parts to it. If there was no relative internal substructure or changes, one could still say that the particle was moving, spinning, vibrating in some way. Then the question would come up: moving, spinning, vibrating relative to what? If there were just one most-simple unibody having no substructure, change and time could not be measured and essentially time would have no meaning to it at all. Time would be non-existent according to this definition given.
Last edited by forrest noble; April 6th, 2013 at 09:16 AM.
A second is defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom."
So, atoms "vibrate".
Even if the body in question was a single atom, time would pass for it.
When I'm at rest in my bed I often wish time would stop. Unfortunately it never does, so my alarm clock always goes off every morning, without fail.If the only body in existance is at rest, does that mean that time "stops"?
Why would time have anything to do with whether or not there are particles in the universe ? Even on an empty 4-manifold one can define 'time' as a foliation of hypersurfaces parametrized by t. It is quite independent of whether there are 'bodies' present or whether there is any sort of 'change' going on.
Yes. I have experienced this myself, moving to a higher latitude. There is also jet lag. Without light cues, people operate on a 25 hour clock.Would the circadian rhythm be altered by a change in sunlight pattern? I.E, the month of darkness in the northern regions of Canada?
So atoms vibrate, moving relative to each other.
Now what if I said that this "single body" that exists is a singularity? Would it be composed of smaller stuff that makes time pass to it?
A singularity isn't a "thing".
And the change in energy levels within an atom doesn't really count as movement.
Movement or change do not define time, they are just some of the things that make us aware of it.
No, an atom "vibrates" internally. A single atom. A single atom that can consider itself at rest.
Time is NOT dependent on relative motion.
I see. Is time dependant on any kind of motion, or is it independent?No, an atom "vibrates" internally. A single atom. A single atom that can consider itself at rest.
Time is NOT dependent on relative motion.
No.
Motion is dependent upon time.
Time appears to be fundamentally independent, as is space.or is it independent?
Time is a mystery we do not confirm about it yet. We know spacetime, but spacetime is not alternative to time. Is spacetime responsible for change in our body as we feel.
But most possibly there is one alternative
Time is a "cause" and responsible for "change", in this case time must exist physically
or
Time is an "effect" and due to the internal properties of mass/energies like gravity (space-time is more suitable in this aspect )
Or
Time does not exist physically and is just a measurement source , "Change" occurs due to internal properties and laws of Nature.
What?
No.Time is a "cause" and responsible for "change"
Time is not the "cause". Time is the dimension in which change occurs.
What do you mean "physically"?in this case time must exist physically
Huh?Time is an "effect"
Is space an effect?
No, see above.Time does not exist physically and is just a measurement source
Yes. But change is not possible UNLESS time exists."Change" occurs due to internal properties and laws of Nature.
You are talking about space time
Your answer already included in my above 3 options not new thing
Is Time exist physically or not ?
Is space exist physically and have properties ?
Of course they exist. If time didn't exist everything would happen at once. If space didn't exist, everything would be in the same location.
No, I'm talking about time.
I could tell because I used the word "time" and not "space time".
And each of your 3 "options" were flawed.
AM NOT HERE EARLY BUH in other to get a good explanation to this,we have to be aware of the arrow of time that applies to macrosopic bodies but not microscopic. the so called arrow of time owes to the second law of thermodynamics, which says entropy must increase for an isolated body. meaning if you place two kinds of liquids together,with the lap of time the liquid must have mixed but will never separate by itself. it is also a question of; why is the future so different from the past?
so according to this your hypothetical body which is not different from the miniscuke universe,there must be difference between its past and future. and that already has made the difference,meaning time did not stand still.
Huh?
How are TWO liquids an "isolated body"?
Er, didn't you just answer that? Because the entropy has increased.it is also a question of; why is the future so different from the past?
How does any of that answer my question?
i suppose that its clear that what i stated is that time does not stand still because the future of the body must be different from its past. i don't think thats difficult to comprhend.
Time is a dimension.
Time does not move, objects move in the dimension of time.
i suppose that its clear that what i stated is that time does not stand still because the future of the body must be different from its past. i don't think thats difficult to comprhend.
Either I'm miscomprehending (i.e. you don't mean what you've actually written) or you're wrong.
Time does not move.
The body "moves".
As per PhDemon's post.
i mean time does not stop because the entropy of the body increases,and the idea that the body is stationary with respect to itself does not affect its entropy and therefore cannot affect time....re-quoting you 'time will pass'...i think this is clearer.
A moving (in space) body is stationary with respect to itself, that doesn't affect its speed.
And, also, doesn't affect the length of the road.
Therefore your comments are neither revelatory nor particularly useful.
duck you need to check your first post and tell me why you use time pass and stop to ask the question. am trying to answer your question the same way you asked.(possibly the way you understand it)
MY first post?
=
No.
Motion is dependent upon time.
Time appears to be fundamentally independent, as is space.
???
i don't understand why entrupy must increase with time. isn't that also depending? if a hydrogen and a oxygen molecule combine then you made 1 out of 2.
so how does entropy increase when i read a book?
but in comparison, the information i gain is more than all of what you said.
Are you asking about Emergence?
hu?.........
a black hole is more information going in than coming out, dark matter the same. i said it's dependened. entropy doesn't = increase by nature.
What?
Thermodynamic entropy != information entropy.
Plus, of course, any information "going in" to a black hole is destroyed and lost. Effectively meaning that no information goes into a BH.
What?i said it's dependened. entropy doesn't = increase by nature.
how you know no information goes into a BH?
It's simple.
Your brain is (obviously, given the level of comprehension you're displaying) a black hole.
No information goes in.
As shown by the FACT that I have already explained that, and I used (deliberately) the word "effectively".
Go back to post #41.
Re-read (or read if you didn't when you last looked at that post) my third sentence.
The one that precedes the sentence that says "EFFECTIVELY no information goes into a black hole".
Possibly space and time exist but meaning of their existence are completely different from all other matters that exist physically.Of course they exist. If time didn't exist everything would happen at once. If space didn't exist, everything would be in the same location.
As per present knowledge space does not have physical existence and does not have properties and time is same.
That is why Einstein combined space with time.
There's no "possibly" about it.
They exist.
Really?but meaning of their existence are completely different from all other matters that exist physically.
Does thought exist? Concepts? A song?
Perhaps you're getting confused between "existence" and "gross matter" for example.
How can I put it in simple words? Hang on, got it: no, you're wrong.As per present knowledge space does not have physical existence and does not have properties and time is same.
Er no.That is why Einstein combined space with time.
It would probably be more accurate to say "Einstein managed to combine space and time BECAUSE they both exist and have properties".
Last edited by Dywyddyr; April 11th, 2013 at 01:04 PM.
OK if space has physically existence, from which particles it is made ?
As per present knowledge it does not have physically existence even if has presence it is not yet clear to us.
One more time:
Does thought exist? Concepts? A song?
Perhaps you're getting confused between "existence" and "gross matter" for example.
No. You're wrong.As per present knowledge it does not have physically existence even if has presence it is not yet clear to us.
Yes not even 1% doubt , song or concept are completely based on physically existing matter otherwise song, concepts should be unreal .One more time:
Does thought exist? Concepts? A song?
Perhaps you're getting confused between "existence" and "gross matter" for example.
No. You're wrong.As per present knowledge it does not have physically existence even if has presence it is not yet clear to us.
In other words all you have is a circular argument.
One that even you don't appear to understand.
Tell me, to use your own question,:
from which particles is a song made?
from which particles is a concept made?
Song is a sound stored on a sound recorded material , and has physical presence .
Let me see...
You answered one question out of two.
Recorded sound is of the singing, not the song itself.
Otherwise, by this argument, each recording - different artists, different arrangements etc. -is a completely different song.
Plus, of course, if it's not recorded does that mean the song doesn't exist anymnore?
But you're welcome to keep trying.
I am composing a song right now. It exists in my head, but I have not sung it out loud yet, so it is not a sound. It has no physical presence as it is contained purely within my mind.
I can share my song with others, by singing it to them, or recording it and distributing it, or by writing out the words and music, but the song exists regardless of whether I share it or not.
I might just keep the song in my head, forever.
RAJ_K,
Time has no mainstream definition, therefore the only thing that can be explained about it here in a mainstream forum are various mainstream points of view/ arguments. There is no known ultimate "truth" concerning the character of time to date, just opinions. Although one may disagree in the supposed truth of most of these mainstream hypothesis, that will not change some commonality between these arguments. Most agree that time is a thing, not just a concept, that it has its separate existence from matter. Space also is considered to be a thing that accordingly has its own existence separate from matter and energy which it separates. This is the present consensus view. If one wishes to argue otherwise he may think there are mountains of evidence to support his arguments, but the mainstream does not consider such "evidence" either valid or convincing, since such contensions are contrary to present theory.In other words all you have is a circular argument.
Last edited by forrest noble; April 12th, 2013 at 01:16 PM.
Not correct. Space-time has geometric and topological properties, like curvature and possibly torsion. It may also have a non-trivial vacuum topology on microscopic scales ( order of the Planck length ).and does not have properties and time is same
Let me see...
You answered one question out of two.
Recorded sound is of the singing, not the song itself.
Otherwise, by this argument, each recording - different artists, different arrangements etc. -is a completely different song.
Plus, of course, if it's not recorded does that mean the song doesn't exist anymnore?
But you're welcome to keep trying.
Everything from song to concepts are based on physical presence.
Any thing does not have physical presence does not exists.
I have two compact disks. In first , my voice is stored and in second your voice is stored.
Both song has physical existence.
If both produce different voice are completely output of physical difference between two devices.
If I think a sound, it is based on physcal presence in my brain.
If I sang a song, physically it is in form of sound waves.
Yes it is right. but different aspects of space time are not explained and spacetime is limited upto geometrical explanation.
If a song is present in your head, it is 100% based on physical presence material in your brain.I am composing a song right now. It exists in my head, but I have not sung it out loud yet, so it is not a sound. It has no physical presence as it is contained purely within my mind.
I can share my song with others, by singing it to them, or recording it and distributing it, or by writing out the words and music, but the song exists regardless of whether I share it or not.
I might just keep the song in my head, forever.
If there are two similar brains, at one time one learned a song and other does not, it means there is also physical difference between both brains.
What?
Trivially true: if you didn't have a brain then you couldn't "hold" a song in it.
Also (probably) trivially true (but, equally probably, indiscernible).If there are two similar brains, at one time one learned a song and other does not, it means there is also physical difference between both brains.
Yet the song is NOT physical, nor is it comprised of anything material.
I'm not sure how we drifted into this (again?) but I would suggest that software is the canonical example of something that doesn't exist. There are various representations of it (diagrams, source code, CD-ROM, bits in memory) but none of them are the software itself.
Like what, exactly ?but different aspects of space time are not explained
"Based on" is true.
The physicality is the substrate for the non-physical song/ concept.
Wrong.Any thing does not have physical presence does not exists.
This is yet another example of you using a circular argument to support a circular argument.
Nope. Both instances of the singing have a physical existence.I have two compact disks. In first , my voice is stored and in second your voice is stored.
both song has physical existence
Yet the song is exactly the same in both cases.If both produce different voice are completely output of physical difference between two devices.
Oh, you missed my previous reply:If I sang a song, physically it is in form of sound waves.
Recorded sound is of the singing, not the song itself.
And you STILL appear to be ignoring "explaining" concepts.
Maybe you realise that one doesn't fit your claim.
I am a Computer Faculty and example of software was already in mind.
I teach students hardware is part of computer system which we can touch.
And software that cannot touch.
Which we call software is a physical thing which appears in other forum to us.
But just because we can't touch it doesn't mean it's not physical is what you're saying here, right?
What?Which we call software is a physical thing which appears in other forum to us.
If you meant "What we call software is a physical, but is a non-tangible form of physicality" (which is the [only] meaning I managed to extract from that) then, once again, you are making this statement as if it were indisputable fact.
Which it isn't.
;412114]"Based on" is true.
The physicality is the substrate for the non-physical song/ concept.
Wrong.Any thing does not have physical presence does not exists.
This is yet another example of you using a circular argument to support a circular argument.
Nope. Both instances of the singing have a physical existence.I have two compact disks. In first , my voice is stored and in second your voice is stored.
both song has physical existence
Yet the song is exactly the same in both cases.If both produce different voice are completely output of physical difference between two devices.
Oh, you missed my previous reply:If I sang a song, physically it is in form of sound waves.
Recorded sound is of the singing, not the song itself.
And you STILL appear to be ignoring "explaining" concepts.
Maybe you realise that one doesn't fit your claim.[/QUOTE]
I do not know why such simple things are not being understood by some people on such a scientific forum.
Song is stored . We can hear it again only if it has physical existence. If I format CD than its physical existence is deleted form CD and you can not hear song from CD.
I can remember a song only if it is stored in my brain in some biochemical or some other form.
Without physical existence we can not observe anything .
Oh, that one's easily explained.
Because you are wrong.
As has been shown.
This is incorrect. Again, as has been pointed out.Song is stored . We can hear it again only if it has physical existence. If I format CD than its physical existence is deleted form CD and you can not hear song from CD.
What is stored is the performance of the song, not the song itself.
Good, now we're getting somewhere.I can remember a song only if it is stored in my brain in some biochemical or some other form.
How do the biochemicals that store the song differ, biochemically, from those that store, for example, your shopping list for the week?
Is there ANY WAY at all to distinguish a "song-storing biochemical" from a "shopping list-storing biochemical"?
And back again to your unsupported circular argument.Without physical existence we can not observe anything .
You're on EXACTLY the same path - i.e. blind unsupported belief - as you were with regard to the actuality of the HUP.
Yes, if a brain stores a song and in other case it stores a list of food , difference is physical. If physical diffrence is remove both brain will remenber same song or list. If there are two similar brains. First brain remembers a song but second brain remembers a list of name . At that time this makes physical difference between both brains. If we make second brain similar to first brain , then second brain also remember song as first brain remembers. Every difference is due to physical difference. If A cd produces a song and other cd a speach ,it is due to physical difference between both cds.
Is it?
Source please.
Source please.If physical diffrence is remove both brain will remenber same song or list.
Still going down the wrong path.If A cd produces a song and other cd a speach ,it is due to physical difference between both cds.
A CD is a recording of the performance of the song. It is not the song.
This is very simple thing and worldy accepted . If you can not understand such simple things what about difficult concepts? If you remember a song you heard somedays ago, is it not due to song is stored in ur brain? If your memory is washed, can you remember song?
Apparently not simple, since you don't seem to accept the correct answer.
And NO, you're assuming that YOUR "explanation" is universal.
The same questions applies, in exactly the same way, to you.If you can not understand such simple things what about difficult concepts?
Which has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the existence of the song.If you remember a song you heard somedays ago, is it not due to song is stored in ur brain? If your memory is washed, can you remember song?
If your memory is washed does the song disappear? Or is simply that your particular "copy" has gone?
If some one created a song and it is only in his brain and no other heard it then existence of song will delete with cleaning of memory. Songs,conceps,feelings exist physically in some forms. Otherwise they can not exist.
Do you require any help moving those goalposts?
And again: a repetition of an usupported belief.Songs,conceps,feelings exist physically in some forms. Otherwise they can not exist.
You persist in stating this as if it were fact. It is not.
You can remember a song only if it is stored in ur brain in biochemical or any other form. If that storage is deleted you cannot remember that song. It is common sense.
Tautological.
And doesn't help your argument.
Oh, maybe you meant to write "...in biochemical or any other physical form".
Agreed. Mainly because the statement is tautological.If that storage is deleted you cannot remember that song.
Yes, you keep appealing to "common sense".It is common sense.
Is that due to the fact that you have no other support for your contention?
YOU. ARE. WRONG.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; April 14th, 2013 at 07:52 PM.
what about demenzia? but still i don't see why time shouldn't pass if there's only one object.
If you believe there is no memory in brainTautological.
And doesn't help your argument.
Oh, maybe you meant to write "...in biochemical or any other physical form".
Agreed. Mainly because the statement is tautological.If that storage is deleted you cannot remember that song.
Yes, you keep appealing to "common sense".It is common sense.
Is that due to the fact that you have no other support for your contention?
YOU. ARE. WRONG.
If you believe brain does not have capacity to store information
then you should need to learn biology not physics
Learning and memory
Almost all animals are capable of modifying their behavior as a result of experience—even the most primitive types of worms. Because behavior is driven by brain activity, changes in behavior must somehow correspond to changes inside the brain. Theorists dating back toSantiago Ramón y Cajal argued that the most plausible explanation is that learning and memory are expressed as changes in the synaptic connections between neurons.[109] Until 1970, however, experimental evidence to support the synaptic plasticity hypothesis was lacking. In 1971 Tim Bliss and Terje Lømo published a paper on a phenomenon now called long-term potentiation: the paper showed clear evidence of activity-induced synaptic changes that lasted for at least several days.[110] Since then technical advances have made these sorts of experiments much easier to carry out, and thousands of studies have been made that have clarified the mechanism of synaptic change, and uncovered other types of activity-driven synaptic change in a variety of brain areas, including the cerebral cortex, hippocampus, basal ganglia, and cerebellum.[111]
Neuroscientists currently distinguish several types of learning and memory that are implemented by the brain in distinct ways:
- Working memory is the ability of the brain to maintain a temporary representation of information about the task that an animal is currently engaged in. This sort of dynamic memory is thought to be mediated by the formation of cell assemblies—groups of activated neurons that maintain their activity by constantly stimulating one another.[112]
- Episodic memory is the ability to remember the details of specific events. This sort of memory can last for a lifetime. Much evidence implicates the hippocampus in playing a crucial role: people with severe damage to the hippocampus sometimes show amnesia, that is, inability to form new long-lasting episodic memories.[113]
- Semantic memory is the ability to learn facts and relationships. This sort of memory is probably stored largely in the cerebral cortex, mediated by changes in connections between cells that represent specific types of information.[114]
- Instrumental learning is the ability for rewards and punishments to modify behavior. It is implemented by a network of brain areas centered on the basal ganglia.[115]
- Motor learning is the ability to refine patterns of body movement by practicing, or more generally by repetition. A number of brain areas are involved, including the premotor cortex, basal ganglia, and especially the cerebellum, which functions as a large memory bank for microadjustments of the parameters of movement.[116]
Oh my!
Maybe you should learn to read exactly what is written.
I am NOT disputing memory. I am NOT disputing the storage of information.
What I AM disputing is your unsupported contention that information is physical.
You believe brain have memoryOh my!
Maybe you should learn to read exactly what is written.
I am NOT disputing memory. I am NOT disputing the storage of information.
What I AM disputing is your unsupported contention that information is physical.
You believe information is stored in memory
But you do not believe information is stored physically in memory ?
Is there a new way you created non physical way ?
Till no one could find a thing (information or another thing ) that can be stored but that thing does not have physical existence
If you found congrats
You're doing it again.
Using your unsupported assertion to argue that that assertion is true.
That. Does. Not. Work.
i would like you to google for "What is time?"
and about your question, please don;t apply relativitic mechanics in here for god's sake.
Think for yourself if you were alone in the space with everyone dead would you age?
that's a biological phenomenon, the first post is the most accurate answer.
This is the physics forum. Expect answers based in physics.
Yes, of course you would.
There is no theory in science that mention that information does not exist physicallyYou're doing it again.
Using your unsupported assertion to argue that that assertion is true.
That. Does. Not. Work.
If you know its strange , show me such a theory
You believe information is stored but you do not believe its physical existence
I think you are confused and your own statements are contradictory
Please show me a "theory in science that says information does exist physically".
And you're obviously grasping at straws.You believe information is stored but you do not believe its physical existence
I think you are confused and your own statements are contradictory
You have failed consistently to support your claim.
You have failed consistently to come up with anything other than "common sense" - the stuff that tell us the Sun orbits the Earth.
You are now asking me to prove a negative.
OK if you are right , show me information does not have physical existencePlease show me a "theory in science that says information does exist physically".
And you're obviously grasping at straws.You believe information is stored but you do not believe its physical existence
I think you are confused and your own statements are contradictory
You have failed consistently to support your claim.
You have failed consistently to come up with anything other than "common sense" - the stuff that tell us the Sun orbits the Earth.
You are now asking me to prove a negative.
Give any theory or a line where it is written information does not exist physically
I think you can not give as there is no such thing
You're doing it again.
Support YOUR claim.
I have explained my position numerous times.
The singing is not the song.
The writing is not the message.
The speech is not the concept.
The TV programme is not the discussion.
You are going away from the main point
Show me information/song/ or any thing does not have physical existence
I think you cannot
Wrong.
YOU CLAIMED - Yes not even 1% doubt , song or concept are completely based on physically existing matter otherwise song, concepts should be unreal - post #50.
It is up to you to show you are correct.
You're STILL confusing the information/ song itself with the medium used to transmit/ record it.Show me information/song/ or any thing does not have physical existence
And I think this is yet another case you having a fixed belief and you're flailing wildly in an attempt to sustain it in the face of facts.I think you cannot
Of course we cannot. In order to show your thoughts to someone else, you have to give them a physical form, be it through verbal communication or the written word.
But do thoughts themselves have a physical existence? THAT is the question here.
I am currently thinking about something.. where exactly is the physical existence of that thought? How does it exist in a physical form? What is it made of?
Yes, it has physical existence like a movie storedOf course we cannot. In order to show your thoughts to someone else, you have to give them a physical form, be it through verbal communication or the written word.
But do thoughts themselves have a physical existence? THAT is the question here.
I am currently thinking about something.. where exactly is the physical existence of that thought? How does it exist in a physical form? What is it made of?
Movie player gives its special view according to its technology
Similarly like video player our brain give its special view to us
i
If you think a non physical existed thing can be stored , than what can I do ?Wrong.
YOU CLAIMED - Yes not even 1% doubt , song or concept are completely based on physically existing matter otherwise song, concepts should be unreal - post #50.
It is up to you to show you are correct.
You're STILL confusing the information/ song itself with the medium used to transmit/ record it.Show me information/song/ or any thing does not have physical existence
And I think this is yet another case you having a fixed belief and you're flailing wildly in an attempt to sustain it in the face of facts.I think you cannot
What can you do?
Provide actual support for your claim.
Repeated assertions do NOT provide that support.
Simply stating that I am wrong does NOT provide that support.
Not providing support does not provide support.
Got it yet?
You agree brain have memory and you agree brain stores informationWhat can you do?
Provide actual support for your claim.
Repeated assertions do NOT provide that support.
Simply stating that I am wrong does NOT provide that support.
Not providing support does not provide support.
Got it yet?
Can a non physical existed thing be stored ?
If memory of brain stores information
Memory space is filled with information and information take place
If it does not exist physically
It can not take space or fill memory if it is not physically existed
Oops.
Haven't I been arguing ALL ALONG that a song, for example, is non-physical?
Haven't I stated that it can be "stored" in the brain?
IS "memory space" filled in the brain?If memory of brain stores information
Memory space is filled with information and information take place
If it does not exist physically
It can not take space or fill memory if it is not physically existed
Is space taken up in the brain?
Have you any data or a link showing that there's some sort of "reduction of available space" whenever one learns a new song?
Once again you are NOT supporting your claim.
You're merely trying to pick holes in mine.
PLEASE SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM - as directly (i.e. not by finding" flaws" in my position, but by providing evidence for yours) as possible.
Short-term memory allows recall for a period of several seconds to a minute without rehearsal. Its capacity is also very limited: George A. Miller (1956), when working at Bell Laboratories, conducted experiments showing that the store of short-term memory was 7±2 items (the title of his famous paper, "The magical number 7±2"). Modern estimates of the capacity of short-term memory are lower, typically of the order of 4–5 itemsOops.
Haven't I been arguing ALL ALONG that a song, for example, is non-physical?
Haven't I stated that it can be "stored" in the brain?
IS "memory space" filled in the brain?If memory of brain stores information
Memory space is filled with information and information take place
If it does not exist physically
It can not take space or fill memory if it is not physically existed
Is space taken up in the brain?
Have you any data or a link showing that there's some sort of "reduction of available space" whenever one learns a new song?
Once again you are NOT supporting your claim.
You're merely trying to pick holes in mine.
PLEASE SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM - as directly (i.e. not by finding" flaws" in my position, but by providing evidence for yours) as possible.
If human brain has limited storage capacity , it means information stored in memory takes place and memory is filled.
Human brain is like computer, when we store something in primary or secondary memory it is filled with information that physically exists.
You can say nothing more than again and again
"PLEASE SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM - as directly (i.e. not by finding" flaws" in my position, but by providing evidence for yours) as possible"
If you have any logic which I do not believe, show me a non physically existed thing can be stored , retrieve and can be observed
in any form.
Give any line or theory do you know regarding this.
I think you can not as there is nothing regarding this.
Short-term memory allows recall for a period of several seconds to a minute without rehearsal. Its capacity is also very limited: George A. Miller (1956), when working at Bell Laboratories, conducted experiments showing that the store of short-term memory was 7±2 items (the title of his famous paper, "The magical number 7±2"). Modern estimates of the capacity of short-term memory are lower, typically of the order of 4–5 itemsOops.
Haven't I been arguing ALL ALONG that a song, for example, is non-physical?
Haven't I stated that it can be "stored" in the brain?
IS "memory space" filled in the brain?If memory of brain stores information
Memory space is filled with information and information take place
If it does not exist physically
It can not take space or fill memory if it is not physically existed
Is space taken up in the brain?
Have you any data or a link showing that there's some sort of "reduction of available space" whenever one learns a new song?
Once again you are NOT supporting your claim.
You're merely trying to pick holes in mine.
PLEASE SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM - as directly (i.e. not by finding" flaws" in my position, but by providing evidence for yours) as possible.
If human brain has limited storage capacity , it means information stored in memory takes place and memory is filled.
Human brain is like computer, when we store something in primary or secondary memory it is filled with information that physically exists.
You can say nothing more than again and again
"PLEASE SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM - as directly (i.e. not by finding" flaws" in my position, but by providing evidence for yours) as possible"
If you have any logic which I do not believe, show me a non physically existed thing can be stored , retrieve and can be observed
in any form.
Give any line or theory do you know regarding this.
I think you can not as there is nothing regarding this.
...is not long term memory.
Notice that first word there? The two-lettered one? IF.If human brain has limited storage capacity , it means information stored in memory takes place and memory is filled.
So you're now taking the IF as fact.Human brain is like computer, when we store something in primary or secondary memory it is filled with information that physically exists.
And now, rather than support your contention, you choose to attack me.If you have any logic which I do not believe, show me a non physically existed thing can be stored , retrieve and can be observed
in any form.
That doesn't work either.
Once again you are NOT supporting your claim.Give any line or theory do you know regarding this.I think you can not as there is nothing regarding this.
You're merely trying to pick holes in mine.
PLEASE SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM - as directly (i.e. not by finding" flaws" in my position, but by providing evidence for yours) as possible.
The brain storage of memories involves complex neuromolecular processes and use dependent changes in synaptic micro architecture and intracellular alterations in various important chemicals involved in cellular communication and gene expression. To understand that the physical properties of neurons change with experience is crucial to understanding the concept of memory. The brain changes with experience, all experience, good and bad. The brain changes by storing elements of a traumatic experience.
The brain allows the individual to sense the external and internal environment, process this information, perceive and store elements of these sensations, and act to promote survival, and optimise our chances for successful mating. This is the key to survival of the species. In order to do this, the brain creates internal representations of the external world, taking information that was once external to the organism, transforming this into patterned neuronal activity and, in a use-dependent fashion, creating and storing these representations. A further characteristic of this internal representation is that the brain makes and stores associations between the sensory information e.g. sights, sounds, smells, positions, and emotions, from that specific event e.g. the pairing of the growl of the tiger and danger, allowing the individual to generalise to sensory information present in current or future events. Hope this helped.
@Dywyddr
You agree information can be stored and can be erased
Just give an example you have watched in all your life where a non physically existed thing can be deleted
But I hope you will not because you can do nothing more than just repeating your claim
It didn't help support your assertion, if that's what you were hoping.
I know you will not give answer because you do not have and I also do not expect
Answer? From me?
One more time:
Once again you are NOT supporting your claim.
PLEASE SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM - as directly (i.e. not by finding" flaws" in my position, but by providing evidence for yours) as possible.
There is no answer required from me.
The assertion was yours.
I hope you will repeat your post becasue you can just do this
It is not useful to post more regarding this
Final conclusion: You believe information is a non physical existed thing
I believe information exists physically in some form
Your argument is brain stores information but information does not keep place in brain
So storage capacity of memory is unlimited
I believe storage capacity of human brain is limited
Correct.
Because you will not, or cannot, support your assertion that "information exists physically in some form".
If someone need logical facts to understand some logic we can give it , But if someone need logic to understand some facts we can not
Also for me
| « Acoustic Resonance | Physics project -Idea?? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
6Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
