My pareidolia knows no bounds.

Hmmm ... fear of intimacy, it seems. The topic title has "no bounds" in it, but I realize that we have not defined what that means I suppose.

I just now realized that "realize" has "real" in it - reality is all around us.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by shando</i>
<br />
I have not noticed the effects of food, no food or physical activity on the speed or quality of my thought processes.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> There is no doubt in my mind that a person can't eat food and think at his highest critical level at the same time. I have proved it countless times.

To bring this back to the mundane, I've been buying and selling stocks for more than three decades. But for only one year, I daytraded.

Now, to anyone who has ever done daytrading, you immediately see that this is a world where seconds count. There can be no distractions from others, no talking, no ringing phones, just you and the computer monitor. Anything more than that, and you are guaranteed to lose money.

I can't tell you how many times my wife would come home, stick a sandwich in front of me, I take one bite, and immediately make my first mistake of the day. You simply cannot eat and concentrate at your highest levels. It's impossible.

I refer to this phenomena as "the thousand dollar sandwich effect."

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />
Such ambiguity is one of the reasons we are still arguing about relativity. Relativity is real - but is it physical or conceptual? Or perhaps some of it physical and the rest is conceptual?

This distinction becomes more useful when talking about stuff like the difference between space (a concept) and a meter stick (physical) or between time (a concept) and a clock (physical). Meter sticks and clocks are real. Space and time are real. But in different ways.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ok, well I'm at least getting the idea of the realm you're discussing. Somewhat, anyway. Now I have to go back and review the first message that led to this.

rd

This discussion has become very interesting. I used to spend a considerable amount of time thinking about these kinds of things. For instance, read "In Search of Schrdinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality" by John Gribbin and sit back after each chapter and try to "visualize" any one of the experiments and what they're supposed to "prove", like the one about "action at a distance" where photons are shot off in two different directions and each affects the outcome of the other in some way, and the subsequent proof.

To me, it was almost impossible to visualize, so much so that I found it hard to believe that they were discussing "physical" reality. The same thing goes for the myriad sub-particles that are predicted, search for, and then found. Or QM itself for that matter. No matter how hard I tried, I could never quite visualize it. Maybe you're not supposed to be able to visualize it, but that's how my mind works. If I can't visualize it, I have to take it on faith. Maybe it's all about understanding the equations themselves, and that's quite possible, but that's totally in the realm of the "conceptual". (Hey, maybe I'm starting to see what Larry's getting at.)

It's almost as if:

<b>If man can conceive something with equations, he can equally <i>prove </i> what he predicted using the same kind of thinking.</b>

Sort of analogous to: "If you build it, they will come." Only in this case: "If you can conceive it, you can find it."

rd

rd- The quantum thing? Reality is efficient. A tree doesn't fall and make a sound unless an ear type thing is there. What is the use of a sound with no ear or visa versa. The ear and the sound co-create each other. We and the universe co-create each other. My desire to see a complex pareidolic (ressler) image conjures up "Einstein". The image knows i am looking for it and it wants to be captured and show people they are creating what they see. If one looks for a particle/ wave or electron cloud one finds it and it's opposite. They are three sides of a coin. Or 10 or infinite if your into strings and things.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />
Think about this. Does time have physical existence? (Obviously clocks do.) So if a clock runs slow, does that mean time is also slowing down?

Special Relativity is based on the answer being 'yes'. Atomic clocks slow down as their relative speed increases. And we all know of the twin paradox for high speed.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I say no. Time is a concept. Nothing changes if we have no clocks, fast clocks or slow clocks, except maybe our record keeping gets messed up.

And until I see someone come back from a brief trip at near light speeds and he's 20 when he should be 50, I'm saying it's nonsense.

rd