Adamantium or Nth Metal?

[The Question]

Actually, any rip in time and space may cause a cascade. However small. You're still removing a part of one dimension, and forcing it into another.

And I also wasn't talking about a rip in time and space.

If it isn't scientific, then it wouldn't follow any laws of the universe, and hence, be against the laws of science.

When I say science, I'm talking about the scientific method.

And generate would be the word you're looking for. Manifestation and generation are similar. Though manifest would be totally against science.

No, it wouldn't. It would be against scientific reasoning, but there's nothing to say that it would be physically impossible.

I'm assuming that, because the mind recorded has yet to show anything but that. While the mind is an extremely complicated instrument, it doesn't seem to do anything but simple little tasks like pumping a heart, or making sure your nervous system is fine.

While it might be possible that the brain does more than that, it doesn't seem to extend past the body.

Most minds, yes. But it is somewhat reasonable to assume that some would be more capable of this than others.

I almost pushed on that point in my last post, but didn't, as that was talking about atomic energy reactions and such (not that I wasn't before.) Ambient energy around Earth would be a fine power source. However, the energy required to do these things would be so massive, that it would push everything around it to almost 0 Kelvin, and basically just destroy all matter around it, since the requirement of energy is great.

The energy required to create a sentient consciousness isn't that massive. Sentient consciousnesses are created about every eight seconds, and the rest of the world is no worse for the wear.

Don't stress it about the mind altering substances thing. I know what you're talking about not explaining it that well. I usually don't understand half of what I'm talking about unless I'm in my conceptual state of mind.

Either way, the universe as a computer analogue fits the bill of what you're trying to say to the point you're trying to say it to. However, you're talking about altering trillions, possibly quadrillions of miles of space by something that you couldn't even see with an electron microscope with proportionate means. Think of it this way. If one atom of your body decays and "dies", does the rest of your body follow suit? The universe is huge. Infinitely huge just about, and growing more by the moment. Almost faster than the speed of light. The universe probably wouldn't even know how to respond to something as small as a simple human request.

Of course, that's assuming that the universe reacts to us like a person does to the atoms in their body. This is obviously not the case. It could be that the universe can respond to minor requests like that (and in the grant scheme of things, creating a pagan god is a very minor request), and there are many people who often put forth such theories.

And of course, I could easily (but I'm not, seeing how this is meant to be controlled) go into bombs, and how that destroys my argument. But then, using bombs isn't really bending anything. It's refracting of chemical reactions and such. But we can go into that if you want.

Let's not.

T

hen they wouldn't really be science anything.

No. They just wouldn't be made up of massive amounts of energy. There's no reason to assume that they would.

That would be the only way to really change the environment around you. Numbers do not bend.

But adding new numbers does alter the string. Such entities would probably influence the information of the universe by adding more here and there to alter the code, so to speak. Of course, that is if you think the universe is a string of numbers, which I personally don't.

For it to be considered science, yes, there does. If there is no reason, or proof of it ever happening, then it really wouldn't be considered science.

Yes, you're right, it isn;t scientific. But that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. It just means that it is an unknown.

This I can agree with. But if they didn't understand how to really make it work in the first place, then they really wouldn't be able to do it again. (Notice how I love using lasers) Lasers were not an accidental discovery. That took years of research and understanding photonic values.

But we're not talking about lasers, and we're not talking about knowing how to do it. They know how to make it happen. They simply don't know how it works. But they know that it does work, and that is good enough for them.

This, I heavily disagree on. Science is science. It's not a human invention, it's our name for it. Like a tree is a labelled a tree. The application of science is a methodology. Science itself is nothing more than science.

No, science if a human invention. It is a practive. A methodology.

However, I will not accept that something is physically possible, but not scientifically possible without some form of example.

That's fair.

Actually, objectivity is still possible even when dealing with humans, as long as a proper scientific method is being observed. A scientific method is really nothing more than a hypothesis, a test, corrections to the hypothesis, and retest. The method repeats itself until something is either found to be defunct, or a law.

No. Objectivity cannot be maintained when experimenting with human consciousness, as everything that happens with that is based on the perceptions of the person in question.

What you're kind of explaining in the end, is the ever increasing popularity of the "Butterfly Effect." But that doesn't just go with observation, that also go with talking, or waving your hand.

It's not so much the butterfly effect, even though that is also a reason why the scientific method had flaws in certain areas. I was refering more to the idea that reality itself can be altered by and is defined by what we see and are aware of, as suggested in the cat in the box theory.

I guess this needs to be explained out. Since we're now trying to really dwelve into human effects, non outward physical, on the environment, we'll be requiring these documented cases. Or at least a website that can somewhat tell me what we're more or less dealing with here. And for the moment, I'll assume the possibility.

However, what we're still talking about is a massive manipulation of energy. Manipulate a little energy, and nothing much happens. The universe doesn't bend that much, nobody cares, it might even heat up a little around where you're trying to bend energy. Change something physically, and we're talking about a whole NEW set of rules. The energy requirement for burning things would be immense. The energy to grow things is massive. A little bit of nigh detectable energy would be nothing. And the energy to punch a whole in time and space, or bend things around would be counted in the mass amount of solar masses of chemicals needed.

True. However, I bring you back to the idea that reality is simply the quantum possibility that we are aware of, and the idea that our conscious minds can influence the universe within the laws of nature. If this is the case, and if somehow, someone has elivated their level of conscious awareness to include being aware of these other quantum possibilities, then it is theoretically possible to later the very fabric of reality without physically effecting anything. In essence, finding a loophole in the laws of physics.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

I apologize in advance for my shrewdness. I had to give a fairly important speech today, and my literary skill is not following my normal grace.

And I also wasn't talking about a rip in time and space.

But that's what it is. Moving something from one dimension to another would be removing that time and space, and putting it somewhere else.

When I say science, I'm talking about the scientific method.

And I'm talking about science. The scientific method, we've both already said.

No, it wouldn't. It would be against scientific reasoning, but there's nothing to say that it would be physically impossible.

Manifesting is creating something from nothing. That's "illegal."

Most minds, yes. But it is somewhat reasonable to assume that some would be more capable of this than others.

To assume that some would understand a god? I doubt it. Some are more capable than others in understanding complex things. But not THAT complex.

The energy required to create a sentient consciousness isn't that massive. Sentient consciousnesses are created about every eight seconds, and the rest of the world is no worse for the wear.

Do you know how much energy is inside your body? Within your atoms? If negative you were to touch positive you, your entire country would vaporize. And that's just the basic for energy. Now we're talking about beings who can assume physical form, and still expend mighty energy based feats.

Of course, that's assuming that the universe reacts to us like a person does to the atoms in their body. This is obviously not the case. It could be that the universe can respond to minor requests like that (and in the grant scheme of things, creating a pagan god is a very minor request), and there are many people who often put forth such theories.

Because the universe hasn't shown any other signs of anything. It doesn't grow or contract based on things here on Earth. It was growing, and hit a massive expansion well before we got here.
So it would go to say that the universe doesn't really seem to care much, if it could.

Let's not.

A shame. It really is quite cool.

No. They just wouldn't be made up of massive amounts of energy. There's no reason to assume that they would.

There are two states of things in the universe, mass and energy. If it's neither, it's nonexistant, there's zero scientific method to explain it, which is what you wanted all along, to know if a scientific method could explain magic.

Besides, we've scoured the universe seeing celestial things, if something like that existed, and could interfere with the universe on a large scale beyond that of a sun, beyond that of something 15 solar masses or bigger, we'd probably have seen signs of it. Or at least heard it's energy from here.

But adding new numbers does alter the string. Such entities would probably influence the information of the universe by adding more here and there to alter the code, so to speak. Of course, that is if you think the universe is a string of numbers, which I personally don't.

Universe is a chaotic number based place. It's why physics works so well. If it wasn't number based, then math would really not work so well.

Yes, you're right, it isn;t scientific. But that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. It just means that it is an unknown.

If there is little to no scientific reasoning to back it up, it's really not a good possibility. Someone once said that anything was possible in the universe. What everybody forgets is his later works that elaborates that it's possible, only if it makes sense in basis to the science of the universe.

But we're not talking about lasers, and we're not talking about knowing how to do it. They know how to make it happen. They simply don't know how it works. But they know that it does work, and that is good enough for them.

That's like asking a group of cave men to go to the copy machine and make a print pressing the green button. A machine they had to invent first.

If it's scientific methods (which you've now elaborated) humans must first discover how it works, then build it. Not just stumble across it, or do it then make it. That's why I used lasers. It's a relatively simple machine, but it's not like the guy acidentally invented one.

Think of fire. It's not like fire just kind of came, and then we discovered what we were doing all along. We knew we had to rub sticks together, and we knew we had to use certain materials or else fire wouldn't work.

Something like magic would be TONS more specific.

No, science if a human invention. It is a practive. A methodology.

Hardly. Humans didn't create the universe. The universe dictates any and ALL science. Since physics breaks down into chemistry and biology. We can't build up science. We can study and apply science, but not make it.

Like I said, you're talking about scientific application.

No. Objectivity cannot be maintained when experimenting with human consciousness, as everything that happens with that is based on the perceptions of the person in question.

I see what you mean by that now. I had a different idea in mind.

It's not so much the butterfly effect, even though that is also a reason why the scientific method had flaws in certain areas. I was refering more to the idea that reality itself can be altered by and is defined by what we see and are aware of, as suggested in the cat in the box theory.

See, this is where I'm confused. You've asked me to kind of give you a scientific reasoning for magic, but (and I know this is the wrong place to put this statement) you want me to utilize comic book science. Two sciences that wouldn't work together all that well.

True. However, I bring you back to the idea that reality is simply the quantum possibility that we are aware of, and the idea that our conscious minds can influence the universe within the laws of nature. If this is the case, and if somehow, someone has elivated their level of conscious awareness to include being aware of these other quantum possibilities, then it is theoretically possible to later the very fabric of reality without physically effecting anything. In essence, finding a loophole in the laws of physics.

I wouldn't know if I would say it's theoretically possible. You're talking about taking someone beyond mass and energy, and making them 4+ dimensional. And if they were four dimensional or higher,they'd immediately become unviewable, and uninteractable to us.

 

[The Question]

But that's what it is. Moving something from one dimension to another would be removing that time and space, and putting it somewhere else.

That is assuming that tapping into other quantum possibilities is literally taking something from another universe and putting it in ours. The theory itself suggests that it is in fact altering our reality to comply with the quantum possibility that you are "tapping into" (for lack of a better term).

Manifesting is creating something from nothing. That's "illegal."

I never said anything about creating something from nothing. Never once was it even implied that they;d be creating something from nothing.

To assume that some would understand a god? I doubt it. Some are more capable than others in understanding complex things. But not THAT complex.

Again, that's assuming that they need to understand in detail how this entity functions to create it. My point is that all of these people believing that it should exist tells the universe that it should exist, and in turn the thing comes into being.

Do you know how much energy is inside your body? Within your atoms? If negative you were to touch positive you, your entire country would vaporize. And that's just the basic for energy. Now we're talking about beings who can assume physical form, and still expend mighty energy based feats.

1) We're not talking about creating a whole human body. Just a consiousness. Which obviously doesn't require a planet shattering amount of energy since it happens every few seconds.

2) Yes, they do have rather impressive feats, but they don't need to be made up of massive amounts of energy to preform them. Simply manipulate the energy required. Would it be easy? No. But then, since they lack physical bodies, and are simply beings of pure information, then they're relationship with energy may be quite different from ours.

Because the universe hasn't shown any other signs of anything. It doesn't grow or contract based on things here on Earth. It was growing, and hit a massive expansion well before we got here.
So it would go to say that the universe doesn't really seem to care much, if it could.

Again, that's treating the universe as sentient, which it doesn't have to be for the sake of what I'm talking about. My point is this: One theory is that the universe can be influenced by human consciousness on a scale directly related to the potency of said human consciousness. A few million people over several centuries believing that something should exist would tell the universe to make that thing exist if this theory is correct.

There are two states of things in the universe, mass and energy. If it's neither, it's nonexistant, there's zero scientific method to explain it, which is what you wanted all along, to know if a scientific method could explain magic.

Besides, we've scoured the universe seeing celestial things, if something like that existed, and could interfere with the universe on a large scale beyond that of a sun, beyond that of something 15 solar masses or bigger, we'd probably have seen signs of it. Or at least heard it's energy from here.

You don't understand what I'm saying. It would be made up of something. But it doesn't have to be made up of such a huge amount of energy as you describe. There's no reason for it to be.

Universe is a chaotic number based place. It's why physics works so well. If it wasn't number based, then math would really not work so well.

That doesn't mean that it's literally one huge math equasion, though. That was my point.

If there is little to no scientific reasoning to back it up, it's really not a good possibility. Someone once said that anything was possible in the universe. What everybody forgets is his later works that elaborates that it's possible, only if it makes sense in basis to the science of the universe.

But if there's nothing that says it's impossible, then it remains a maybe. No evidence being found only says that we don't know.

That's like asking a group of cave men to go to the copy machine and make a print pressing the green button. A machine they had to invent first.

No, it's not. It's like finding that moldy bread can keep people from getting sick when putting it on a wound, but not knowing anything about bacteria or penecilin. They discovered it, they discovered that it works, they just don't know the mechanics of it.

If it's scientific methods (which you've now elaborated) humans must first discover how it works, then build it. Not just stumble across it, or do it then make it. That's why I used lasers. It's a relatively simple machine, but it's not like the guy acidentally invented one.

I disagree. Someone can know how to do something and not know how it works.

Think of fire. It's not like fire just kind of came, and then we discovered what we were doing all along. We knew we had to rub sticks together, and we knew we had to use certain materials or else fire wouldn't work.

And yet we didn't know anything about friction or kinetic energy. That's what I'm talking about.

Hardly. Humans didn't create the universe. The universe dictates any and ALL science. Since physics breaks down into chemistry and biology. We can't build up science. We can study and apply science, but not make it.

Like I said, you're talking about scientific application.

No, I'm talking about science. Sceince is a method that we humans invented to try and figure out how things work. It is a system of knowledge and study. It is not the natural laws of the universe. It's what we use to try and understand them.

See, this is where I'm confused. You've asked me to kind of give you a scientific reasoning for magic, but (and I know this is the wrong place to put this statement) you want me to utilize comic book science. Two sciences that wouldn't work together all that well.

I'm not asking you to utilize comic book science. What I'm talking about is a theory. It has not been proven or disproven, but it is a theory none the less. It's a weird theory, I know, but that doesn't make it "comic book science."

I wouldn't know if I would say it's theoretically possible. You're talking about taking someone beyond mass and energy, and making them 4+ dimensional. And if they were four dimensional or higher,they'd immediately become unviewable, and uninteractable to us.

No, I'm not. I'm simply talking about making them aware of different quantum possibilities. Their bodies would remain the same, but they would be able to perceive these different possibilities. Not touch them or physically interact with them, just perceive them.

 

[The Question]

Anyway, this really won't go anywhere. We obviously do not agree and hold to different theries on this subject. No harm. That's the way of things. And we never discover anything new without having somone who disagrees with us who we wnat to prove wrong. t:

Very interesting talk. It would just go on forever, and I kind of want to save my brain for more creative persuits.