Is Thought and object?

why is this thread in terms of 'object'?

at any rate, the mind you percieve, you own mind, teh onyl mind you can truelly experience is definately not an object. the words objective and subjective refer to the two observations : what it is, and what it seems like.
the mind is totally subjective, the mind is what subjectivism is, although it is still possible of understanding objective truths like mathematics. but it cannot view its environment objectively.

in physics, there is no concept of subjectivity or objectivity because phsyics IS objectivity. physics is the mathematics of what IS, and not what SEEMs. not to say physicists have the best grip on real physics overall.
the term 'object' is not used in physical terminology, except in discussion.

to machines testing your brain, your mind is an objectively detectable mix of chemicals and electronic signals. to a psychologist, it is possible to objectively read the mind. to a psychiatrist, the mind is a subjective personality to be observed and shaped till it suits a better subjectivity.

the mind is an odd thing.. because the only person to experience your mind is you.

now, i hope we all understand, though it doesnt seem to have been refered to, that LIGHT is exactly the same thing as the microwaves that cook your food, the xrays that photo your bones, and, many of you may be interested to know, light is exactly the same stuff that transmits signals to your television or your radio.
its called electromagnetic radiation, and it always, no matter what, has a speed (but not velocity) of the speed of light.

when light passes through liquid or gasses however, it does not pass in a straight line. clearly, light is defracted through differnet materials. this diffraction shows that light does not move straight.
on a quantum level, light is interfered by every atom it passes.
the light doesnt slow down, it just doesnt go in a straight line.

two cars can drive at the same speed but if one has to drive around some cones on its way, they wont reach the end at the same time.

quite frankly, if a particle cannot be detected by any means by us, then it means that it does not effect our known. because if it did, then it would be detectable.
if something cannot be detected... then it quite simply does not effect us.
however new particles could explain the holes we have in physics.

 

Physics is not mathematics. It involves a lot of mathematics because maths happens to do a pretty good job of describing the real world but they are independant. I am an experimentalist for two reasons, firstly my maths compared to most physicists secondly I believe that something only becomes real physics when its done experimentally. Often many theoretical models exist one maybe physics other are just fancy maths.

Secondly how does diffraction show that light doesnt travel in stright lines? Diffraction is an example of intereference of wave (Google - Huygens Fresnel principle).

 

Well, thats your oppinion and mine is that mathematics is the essence of anything that IS. It is not some fancy system whereby differnet numerals placed together change into other numerals. the numerals are just our attempt to put mathematics onto paper. mathematics is all around us, the 'maths' that we use are our best attempts to take use of this system of ultimate logic.

if there is any divine power, mathematics is what they lay down to govern the universe. there is no reality other than mathematics.

of course most maths is so complicated that in physics we can only approximate. But its still maths, the essence behind it.

 

Except if you drag mathematics too far then it goes wrong, look at my post about gamma in relativity. Plotting gamma over its full range makes no sense. Mathematics work because we live in a universe where 1 + 1=2, therefore as all maths derives from that and a series of other axioms then maths logically must describe the universe. But if you go on to study physics at a higher level bear in mind maths is a tool, an exceptionally accurate and elegant tool, but a tool. We dont live in the matrix, well i guess we might, but you wont see putting any money on that.

 

for one thing, the graph you described is not an actual mathematical graph. you cannot plot infinity. infinity is an asymptote. boundries exist in physics and they also exist in mathematics.

at any rate, the graph indicates that there is an area of physics past that point, however, it will never occur since no object can pass over the asymptote.

In physics, pretty much every asymptote becomes a boundry, since due to the many laws working together, certain values become practically inachievable. this does not mean they are not part of the framework of reality.
but yeh the main point is that youve read the theory of the gamma-graph wrong since no graph reaches infinity.


no particle has ever been recorded to pass over the asymptote, since maths also proves it impossible, but if it did, then whos to say it wouldnt follow the graph down again?

 

without going into any simantical disertation, I would have to say that for any practical purpose that if it can be measured it is an object

 

Have we looked at the meaning of the word object yet?

you know just for kicks lets throw in some etymology......

 

Electrons are objects, because they are mad up of some form of matter. Therefore the laws of physics apply to them, therefore we cannot think faster than the speed of light. Thought is the product of millions of electrons moving about to different parts of the brain, stimulating different functions and such. Therefore thought is not tangable, but is the product of tangable interactions. Another way to look at this is that thought IS the process of the moving electrons throughout the brain.

 

its the end product an object was the questian posed, not is what thought made of an object, but for any practical purpose or aplication it would be best to consider it an object, the same as time, energy, or any 'thing', otherwise you are simply argueing symantics, which is no real arguement at all