PDA

View Full Version : What is the sixth sense...? (SPOILERS POSSIBLE)



S-EVANS
11-28-2011, 03:23 AM
Dont vote something else and then not explain yourself, its bad sportsmanship http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

raven11d
11-28-2011, 03:32 AM
the sixth sense is knowledge, like Juno said at the end of brotherhood.

at the end of revelations *** SPOILER *** jupiter tells desmond to take it from his head to his hands and then when he wakes up his arm is glowing and he says he KNOWS what needs to be done now

S-EVANS
11-28-2011, 03:35 AM
so you would vote for "ability to see/view future events" option then...

what led you to your conclusion, please ?

raven11d
11-28-2011, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
so you would vote for "ability to see/view future events" option then...

what led you to your conclusion, please ?


no, my vote is "something else". it is't 1 of the 3 other options you gave bc :

1. "ability to communicate beyond time and physical means" Jupiter said the time nexus is more Minerva's domain with the maths ad stuff so it's more a skill then a sense, of which Jupiter, as he says himself, doesn't has the hang of it
2. "ability to see/view future events" that can be done through ( some ) PoE's. Altair used it that way and so did Ezio
3. "ability to control the pieces of eden" many ppl have controlled the PoE's. as we saw in the truth puzzles in AC2 a lot of templars used it, among them Ford, Edison, Hitler, Stalin, etc .. and again Altair and Ezio used it too, so did desmond a bit

my answer is sixth sense = knowledge. don't know how they will "show" that in AC3 but like i said Juno said as much in the end of brotherhood when she was talking about creating humans but only giving 5 senses, keeping the 6th aka knowledge for themselves. desmond woke up in ACR and now he knows what needs to be done so he has awaken his 6th sense and now has the knowledge

S-EVANS
11-28-2011, 04:09 AM
Well adam and eve had the same markings as demsond has been granted, and they certainly knew something since they stole a artifact, so thankyou for your input http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Schmagelborfer
11-28-2011, 04:17 AM
being able to see dead people? desmond does that right?

raven11d
11-28-2011, 04:19 AM
what's your theory about it? can't make a poll and ask for ppl to explain and not give your opinio on the matter .. sportmenship and all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

S-EVANS
11-28-2011, 04:25 AM
Well mine keeps changing to be honest, i origanlly started down the 6th sense being some form of communication but i was unable to stick with it because im always trying to link other things such as...

- pieces of eden
- TWCB
- Humans being created

and many many more...

in this poll and my current line of thinking combined with other peoples thread and my research i voted for the 6th sense allowing a person control the apples, also anyone who holds on cant handle its true power without the suits/markings.

Im honestly still researching ideas, in my attempt to predict the finishing line im currently trying to understand what information is in the temple and what is the 6th sense

Im hoping this thread will project further theorys that i havent thought of to help me, the options you can choose from are relative to my guess work, and the last option gives you all chance to add other ideas http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

raven11d
11-28-2011, 04:28 AM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
Well mine keeps changing to be honest, i origanlly started down the 6th sense being some form of communication but i was unable to stick with it because im always trying to link other things such as...

- pieces of eden
- TWCB
- Humans being created

and many many more...

in this poll and my current line of thinking combined with other peoples thread and my research i voted for the 6th sense allowing a person control the apples, also anyone who holds on cant handle its true power without the suits/markings.

Im honestly still researching ideas, in my attempt to predict the finishing line im currently trying to understand what information is in the temple and what is the 6th sense

Im hoping this thread will project further theorys that i havent thought of to help me, the options you can choose from are relative to my guess work, and the last option gives you all chance to add other ideas http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


don't you just hate to have to wait yet another year? lol
i wish juno put me in a coma and awake me in roughly 11 months

LightRey
11-28-2011, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by raven11d:
the sixth sense is knowledge, like Juno said at the end of brotherhood.

at the end of revelations *** SPOILER *** jupiter tells desmond to take it from his head to his hands and then when he wakes up his arm is glowing and he says he KNOWS what needs to be done now
Which is very ambiguous and could mean a number of things.

My theory is that the sixth sense allows an individual to access a biological internet of sorts. Where all knowledge of people around the world can be accessed. However, this theory is speculation at best.

roostersrule2
11-28-2011, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by raven11d:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by S-EVANS:
Well mine keeps changing to be honest, i origanlly started down the 6th sense being some form of communication but i was unable to stick with it because im always trying to link other things such as...

- pieces of eden
- TWCB
- Humans being created

and many many more...

in this poll and my current line of thinking combined with other peoples thread and my research i voted for the 6th sense allowing a person control the apples, also anyone who holds on cant handle its true power without the suits/markings.

Im honestly still researching ideas, in my attempt to predict the finishing line im currently trying to understand what information is in the temple and what is the 6th sense

Im hoping this thread will project further theorys that i havent thought of to help me, the options you can choose from are relative to my guess work, and the last option gives you all chance to add other ideas http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


don't you just hate to have to wait yet another year? lol
i wish juno put me in a coma and awake me in roughly 11 months </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes then we can relive the life as ezio.

alientraveller
11-28-2011, 05:03 AM
Wow, surprised no one has actually written Eagle Sense.

Schmagelborfer
11-28-2011, 05:07 AM
i don't get why eagle vision/sense helps
ezio SEE things when his name literally means "Eagle Listener from Florence" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

S-EVANS
11-28-2011, 05:21 AM
Eagle sense is where i started, because it ties in with the communication aspects of my thinking, and now im changing my mind about the ability to control the apple due to the 6th sense...

But instead im thinking maybe the 6th sense allows people to access its powers beyond the obvious ?

If sixth sense is linked to eagle vision that means desmond can see things in the future, and i mentioned in a previous post that revelations has expanded his abilities in eagle vision, he can now predict a guards path, etc

maybe the apple is not linked to 6th sense and its just a tool of sorts, like it keep feeding me information

LightRey
11-28-2011, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
i don't get why eagle vision/sense helps
ezio SEE things when his name literally means "Eagle Listener from Florence" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
Ezio doesn't mean eagle.

LieutenantJojo
11-28-2011, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
the sixth sense is knowledge, like Juno said at the end of brotherhood.

at the end of revelations *** SPOILER *** jupiter tells desmond to take it from his head to his hands and then when he wakes up his arm is glowing and he says he KNOWS what needs to be done now
Which is very ambiguous and could mean a number of things.

My theory is that the sixth sense allows an individual to access a biological internet of sorts. Where all knowledge of people around the world can be accessed. However, this theory is speculation at best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed. We know nothing for sure, just that the sixth sense is some form of 'knowledge'.

Personally, I think that this 'sixth sense' is the ability to enter your genetic memories without the use of an Animus. You know everything your ancestors knew, you can do whatever your ancestors could,... You just know it.

So you could say that the sixth sense would be some form of the 'Bleeding Effect'.

S-EVANS
11-28-2011, 06:03 AM
I started with communication option because thats a form of Extrasensory perception, and also what we currently define the 6th sense to be. So my thoughts have never wandered to far from this really

The ability to see into the future option comes from this rather interesting revelation i had myself whilst playing the game. The game makes desmond go back in time by playing as his ancestors, however everything he learns and everything his ancestors learnt are future based. If that makes sense to anyone...

the apple is more because its such a major part of all the storylines that it must have some relevance and im simply trying to link it into the 6th sense, and i cant seem to validate any reasoning that the apple would be linked to a sense it never makes any sense

anyway thats my options i provided you with explained, im starting disregard the apple theory i voted on here since making this thread and just wanted to let you guys know, and try to explain why

S-EVANS
11-28-2011, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by LieutenantJojo:So you could say that the sixth sense would be some form of the 'Bleeding Effect'.

The bleeding effect has made desmond see dreams of things in the future and now that you mention it...


The ability to see into the future option comes from this rather interesting revelation i had myself whilst playing the game. The game makes desmond go back in time by playing as his ancestors, however everything he learns and everything his ancestors learnt are future based. If that makes sense to anyone...

Combined with eagle vision that now displayes a guards path, etc certainly makes sense

Schmagelborfer
11-28-2011, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
i don't get why eagle vision/sense helps
ezio SEE things when his name literally means "Eagle Listener from Florence" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
Ezio doesn't mean eagle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> with subtitles in AC2 when ezio's born it shows "Eagle Listener from Florence", go to palazzo auditore, on the wall it says "AVDITORE", in colonial english on paper you would spell "sufficient" as "fufficient" but pronounce it the same, languages change over time, smart guy

LightRey
11-28-2011, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
i don't get why eagle vision/sense helps
ezio SEE things when his name literally means "Eagle Listener from Florence" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
Ezio doesn't mean eagle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> with subtitles in AC2 when ezio's born it shows "Eagle Listener from Florence", go to palazzo auditore, on the wall it says "AVDITORE", in colonial english on paper you would spell "sufficient" as "fufficient" but pronounce it the same, languages change over time, smart guy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Subtitles or not Ezio really doesn't mean Eagle. Well it does, but not in Italian. It's Greek for Eagle. Which is an indication that it should really be seen separately from his last name. Just like Alta´r's name means "bird" or "the flying" depending on how it's written, whilst his last name has nothing to do with that either.

thekarlone
11-28-2011, 07:18 AM
Sixth sense is knowledge, I don't know what you cannot understand of it.

PS: You don't need to have the sixth sense to be able to use a Piece of Eden.

S-EVANS
11-28-2011, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by thekarlone:
Sixth sense is knowledge, I don't know what you cannot understand of it.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif i do not know of what knowledge is inside the temple of the first civilization...?

thekarlone
11-28-2011, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thekarlone:
Sixth sense is knowledge, I don't know what you cannot understand of it.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif i do not know of what knowledge is inside the temple of the first civilization...? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Knowledge, in general. Knowledge is not about knowing facts or data, but an ability to see everything.

thekarlone
11-28-2011, 07:28 AM
I mean, a full sixth sense = omniscience (and maybe omnipresence).

S-EVANS
11-28-2011, 07:29 AM
Interesting, so the first civilization granted us Sight and touch in order to be effective slaves and have to ability to work.

But in order for us to understand they controlled us with the apple which doesnt require any senses at all.

Yet we was also granted...

Taste
Smell
Hearing

But removed knowledge from us to prevent us knowing we was slaves, and that makes sense...

im thinking...

S-EVANS
11-28-2011, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by thekarlone:
I mean, a full sixth sense = omniscience (and maybe omnipresence).

If this is true i dont think i have any 1st civilization blood since i know nothing of much http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LightRey
11-28-2011, 07:34 AM
Well let's not overestimate the Sixth Sense here. I think we can assume that basically all (or at least a significant portion) of TWCB had full access to the Sixth Sense, which means that even though it's a very useful tool, it did not allow most of them to see the danger ahead.

This would mean that either their preoccupation with the war kept them too busy to look too far ahead or the Sixth Sense is incapable of such things.

S-EVANS
11-28-2011, 07:41 AM
Did they not search for salvation in the ending to revelations (6times) each more promising than the last, but the world still came to a end... Your arguement for the war being a distraction was explained in the ending video as the reason they built the temples underground.

Or im not knowing of much again ???

Knowledge is certainly something all humans can obtain i suppose, but total knowledge understanding everything i can see why you would warn against overestimating the issue

But it makes perfect sense that knowledge is key to the universe and what is beyond comprehension

Decent enough theory to warrant a second thought...

Assassin_M
11-28-2011, 07:42 AM
I believe that the 6th sense is being in Sync with all of your Ancestors yet still retain your sanity i.e "dis-harmful Bleeding effect"
I remember Minerva saying that her name when she died was minerva, before that Merva and Mera and On and On. which suggests that these names may be the names of her Ancestors, yet they slightly changed their names as for it to seem more reasonable and be accepted by their brains with out them risking Insanity.
I also remember the Modern Mentor`s Words to Daniel Cross when he says "All the mentors who have past flow through me" this means that he has some sort of 6th sense, but not a full one.
Juno also stated that the sixth was knowledge, which solidifies what Im saying, that the sixth sense is knowledge gained from your whole bloodline.

Schmagelborfer
11-28-2011, 07:46 AM
would you say Nostradamus had a 6th sense?, he seemed to be in touch with a lot of things since a lot of his predictions came true

S-EVANS
11-28-2011, 07:47 AM
<span class="ev_code_RED">If you have already voted on the subject please vote again, since we are now discussing valid possible endings/solutions...

I altered the title to include spoiler warning, thankyou</span>

S-EVANS
11-28-2011, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Schmagelborfer:
would you say Nostradamus had a 6th sense?, he seemed to be in touch with a lot of things since a lot of his predictions came true

Assuming the 6th sense is knowledge = YES!!

LightRey
11-28-2011, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
Did they not search for salvation in the ending to revelations (6times) each more promising than the last, but the world still came to a end... Your arguement for the war being a distraction was explained in the ending video as the reason they built the temples underground.

Or im not knowing of much again ???

Knowledge is certainly something all humans can obtain i suppose, but total knowledge understanding everything i can see why you would warn against overestimating the issue

But it makes perfect sense that knowledge is key to the universe and what is beyond comprehension

Decent enough theory to warrant a second thought...
They did, but only "those who learned to turn away from war" and even they were not able to save the world that time, so true "omniscience" would be an impossible option.

S-EVANS
11-28-2011, 08:53 AM
Impossible at that time perhaps, but desmond with combined memories from his ancestors and the 1st civilization becomes possible in his era. Desmond can easily become the salvation as a result of inherting the 6th sense and the knowledge from the combination of generations.

This also may be the information that was transmitted from several sources to one single point of interest (the temple) which hes told to go to why they labourered and lost.

Not to mention that desmonds was also told that the answers to his questions such as what the 1st civilization expect of him, so on so forth.

not so much an impossible option, just the sixth sense may be a progressive sense rather than a fully fledged one perhaps.

maybe you care to share your interpretation of what the sixth sense may be ?

LightRey
11-28-2011, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
Impossible at that time perhaps, but desmond with combined memories from his ancestors and the 1st civilization becomes possible in his era. Desmond can easily become the salvation as a result of inherting the 6th sense and the knowledge from the combination of generations.

This also may be the information that was transmitted from several sources to one single point of interest (the temple) which hes told to go to why they labourered and lost.

Not to mention that desmonds was also told that the answers to his questions such as what the 1st civilization expect of him, so on so forth.

not so much an impossible option, just the sixth sense may be a progressive sense rather than a fully fledged one perhaps.

maybe you care to share your interpretation of what the sixth sense may be ?
I already did:


My theory is that the sixth sense allows an individual to access a biological internet of sorts. Where all knowledge of people around the world can be accessed. However, this theory is speculation at best.

I like to stick to science, even within the perspective of video games. Especially if a video game is as scientifically accurate as AC.

S-EVANS
11-28-2011, 09:05 AM
so you are travelling along the knowledge route yourself just not to the degree others are.

and my last descripition has a scientic value in it for you too consider http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RzaRecta357
11-28-2011, 09:06 AM
I think it's the abilty to just know little things a bit better than Ezio gameplay wise as he could see where guards were GOING with his sense.

But mainly the ability to know what your ancestors did without an animus.

I used to think TOWCB probably knew everything their ancestors knew and thus just renamed themselves after birth and death as they felt like the same person.


But now they have a statue of the three of them in their own civilization which leads me to believe there was something even more important about the three of them.

S-EVANS
11-28-2011, 09:25 AM
Given the fact that solar flare could happen on a cycle rather than randomly, each generation of the original civilization could have contributed to the collective based upon peoples thoerys they dont require an animus, also wasnt the animus consider to be 1st civilization technology ??

anyway...

In respect of this the 1st generation in thoery could know (hold knowledge) of its entire bloodline which actually is knowing everything anyway, since theres nothing more to learn.

unless the omniscience theory can be obtained by desmond and the combination of human and 1st civilization knowledge, very scientific viewpoint i admit...

But this game is based on various religions, beliefs & faiths...

Most in their midst would follow a form of leader as we now follow a government, that would explain the statues in appeareance at least. but im certainly not going to dismiss they importance without proof.

halflife52
11-30-2011, 08:23 PM
In AC:B, Juno specifically says that TWCB tried to give humans the sixth sense of "knowledge" by interbreeding with them. She said it didn't give them the full ability - those humans with TWCB DNA are only able to "see the blue shimmer" (Eagle Vision/Sense).

Juno told Desmond to "awaken the sixth." Maybe his interaction with the Apple started that process, and having to piece his mind back together inside the Animus allowed him to awaken the sixth sense. The first thing he says when he comes out of the coma is "I know what we need to do."

S-EVANS
12-01-2011, 10:48 AM
In AC:B, Juno specifically says that TWCB tried to give humans the sixth sense of "knowledge"

If thats true the question is answered...

LightRey
12-01-2011, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by halflife52:
In AC:B, Juno specifically says that TWCB tried to give humans the sixth sense of "knowledge" by interbreeding with them. She said it didn't give them the full ability - those humans with TWCB DNA are only able to "see the blue shimmer" (Eagle Vision/Sense).

Juno told Desmond to "awaken the sixth." Maybe his interaction with the Apple started that process, and having to piece his mind back together inside the Animus allowed him to awaken the sixth sense. The first thing he says when he comes out of the coma is "I know what we need to do."
Not exactly. After mentioning the 5 regular senses humans have and that TWCB had 6, she goes on to say: "knowledge has been kept away". She does not explicitly state that the sixth sense is knowledge, just that lacking the sixth sense is somehow keeping knowledge away from the humans.

halflife52
12-01-2011, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by halflife52:
In AC:B, Juno specifically says that TWCB tried to give humans the sixth sense of "knowledge" by interbreeding with them. She said it didn't give them the full ability - those humans with TWCB DNA are only able to "see the blue shimmer" (Eagle Vision/Sense).

Juno told Desmond to "awaken the sixth." Maybe his interaction with the Apple started that process, and having to piece his mind back together inside the Animus allowed him to awaken the sixth sense. The first thing he says when he comes out of the coma is "I know what we need to do."
Not exactly. After mentioning the 5 regular senses humans have and that TWCB had 6, she goes on to say: "knowledge has been kept away". She does not explicitly state that the sixth sense is knowledge, just that lacking the sixth sense is somehow keeping knowledge away from the humans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is Juno's dialogue:

"A hundred years I might speak and still you would not know us. You with five senses. Us with six. The one we kept from you. To be safe. Now, you can never know. Only try. Grasp. You can SEE. SMELL. TASTE. TOUCH. HEAR. Knowledge has been locked away. After, when the world became undone, we tried to pass it through the blood. Tried to join you with us. You see the blue shimmer. You hear the words. But you do not know! WE SHOULD HAVE LEFT YOU AS YOU WERE! It is hard to stay contained. Knowing as we do. We wait for you, Desmond. You will come here. You will activate it. You will know only when it is too late."

It seems pretty straightforward that knowledge is the sixth sense. TWCB kept knowledge from humans to protect themselves, because if the humans gained knowledge, then they would know they were slaves to TWCB and revolt. This is probably what happened after Adam and Eve stole the Apple. The Apple gave them knowledge (just like in the Bible) and they led the revolt against TWCB.

After the solar flare, TWCB tried to give knowledge to humans by interbreeding with them, but this only gave them partial access to knowledge. The Apples are needed to fully activate knowledge.

deucey13
12-01-2011, 10:36 PM
I think the sixth sense is closely related to the meaning of "Nothing is true, everything is permitted". Now is that knowledge? I don't know. To me, it is perception or feelings. How I perceive or feel about something can be different than how you do. Both are truths in each others eyes, but because we do not have the same view, does that constitute as "nothing is true"? Do our differences fall into the "everything is permitted"?

When Adam and Eve saw themselves not as slaves and escaped, that was using their sixth sense. They broke free of what TWCB told them they were. They stole the apple, probably because they were told it was forbidden which was something that the initially accepted. So maybe part of the sixth sense has to deal with experiences. Desmond and even Ezio have learned from their own and even Altair's experiences.

So I guess, to me, the sixth sense could be defined as knowledge if it is applying your own views and experiences rather than what others/society deems as truths.

Agentbarto
12-01-2011, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raven11d:
the sixth sense is knowledge, like Juno said at the end of brotherhood.

at the end of revelations *** SPOILER *** jupiter tells desmond to take it from his head to his hands and then when he wakes up his arm is glowing and he says he KNOWS what needs to be done now
Which is very ambiguous and could mean a number of things.

My theory is that the sixth sense allows an individual to access a biological internet of sorts. Where all knowledge of people around the world can be accessed. However, this theory is speculation at best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite a compelling one if you factor in the Apples' ability to access the brains of all humans to some degree.

On another note I wish it were the first option as it would lend credence to my hypothesis discussed here. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9011039408/m/3031068169?r=8871016369#8871016369) Shameless plug end-

New sequence begin-
I do however believe that it has something to do with the First Civilization artifacts. The wording and context of "awaken the sixth" seems to arbitrary to allow us to extrapolate that Desmond somehow unlocks a gene because of the synch nexus. Therefore I believe it may be another individual being referenced here. Possibly someone else who can control and manipulate the full power of the artifacts themselves.

LightRey
12-02-2011, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by halflife52:
Here is Juno's dialogue:

"A hundred years I might speak and still you would not know us. You with five senses. Us with six. The one we kept from you. To be safe. Now, you can never know. Only try. Grasp. You can SEE. SMELL. TASTE. TOUCH. HEAR. Knowledge has been locked away. After, when the world became undone, we tried to pass it through the blood. Tried to join you with us. You see the blue shimmer. You hear the words. But you do not know! WE SHOULD HAVE LEFT YOU AS YOU WERE! It is hard to stay contained. Knowing as we do. We wait for you, Desmond. You will come here. You will activate it. You will know only when it is too late."

It seems pretty straightforward that knowledge is the sixth sense. TWCB kept knowledge from humans to protect themselves, because if the humans gained knowledge, then they would know they were slaves to TWCB and revolt. This is probably what happened after Adam and Eve stole the Apple. The Apple gave them knowledge (just like in the Bible) and they led the revolt against TWCB.

After the solar flare, TWCB tried to give knowledge to humans by interbreeding with them, but this only gave them partial access to knowledge. The Apples are needed to fully activate knowledge.
No it's not clear. The word phrase "knowledge has been locked away" could very well be pertaining to the specific (kind of) knowledge that one can access with the Sixth Sense.

You're assuming that she's to referring to something which is called knowledge, for which to our knowledge there is only one candidate, which is knowledge in general, which isn't a sense in any way, shape or form. Even if the Sixth Sense was truly called "knowledge" it would still mean nothing, as our only meaning to said word is no sense, therefore the sense could still be anything.

xxtonypunk96xx
12-02-2011, 12:26 PM
I think its knowledge because in the temple juno hinted at knowledge and how they tried to pass it through the blood qand tried giving us the sith sense. and in the AC:B novel Minerva said humankind struggled to understand our exisitence when Ezio noticed the armor and owl she had on her and said Goddess of Wisdom and bowed his head.

S-EVANS
12-02-2011, 01:31 PM
So how do you link knowledge to a sense with exeception of omniscience ? Unless of course you choose to except the word knowledge as just a word, then im back to square one but with an extra option...

LightRey
12-02-2011, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
So how do you link knowledge to a sense with exeception of omniscience ? Unless of course you choose to except the word knowledge as just a word, then im back to square one but with an extra option...
Well it can't be omniscience since TWCB didn't know everything (and therefore weren't omniscient) and they had the Sixth Sense. Ergo, they were somehow able to access more knowledge (in whatever way that may be) by use of the Sixth Sense.

S-EVANS
12-02-2011, 03:54 PM
Fair enough lets entertain your idea, so the sixth sense would be one of a spirtual one.

Body to spiritual immediatly leads me to engery being the sixth sense which also ties in with knowledge. When the sixth sense gets activated, we begin to perceive absolute elements progressively.

which is in turn knowledge...

hows that working for you ???

LightRey
12-02-2011, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
Fair enough lets entertain your idea, so the sixth sense would be one of a spirtual one.

Body to spiritual immediatly leads me to engery being the sixth sense which also ties in with knowledge. When the sixth sense gets activated, we begin to perceive absolute elements progressively.

which is in turn knowledge...

hows that working for you ???
Define your use of the terms "spiritual", "energy" and "absolute elements".

S-EVANS
12-02-2011, 04:05 PM
assassin creed is based upon religion, beliefs, etc...

now that straight away provides a link to spiritual aspects, which of course in most case to humans are precieved as forms of engery.

Example we pass on, and our familys can feel our energy, and we can affect them with it. the 5 known human sense are relative to absolute elements (earth, wind, fire, etc)

we accept them as absolute, but what if they can be accepted as progressive elements leading to better understanding (knowledge)

thats about my limit of being able to define them (or my thoery) since i dont have a sixth sense http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

EDIT - ablitiy to access ancestors knowledge without a animus and also understand the world and beyond, which is also knowledge

LightRey
12-02-2011, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
assassin creed is based upon religion, beliefs, etc...

now that straight away provides a link to spiritual aspects, which of course in most case to humans are precieved as forms of engery.

Example we pass on, and our familys can feel our energy, and we can affect them with it. the 5 known human sense are relative to absolute elements (earth, wind, fire, etc)

we accept them as absolute, but what if they can be accepted as progressive elements leading to better understanding (knowledge)

thats about my limit of being able to define them (or my thoery) since i dont have a sixth sense http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

EDIT - ablitiy to access ancestors knowledge without a animus and also understand the world and beyond, which is also knowledge
AC is not based on religion, beliefs, etc. AC is based on history and giving a (relatively) logical, scientific (hence the term sci-fi) explanation to combine events described by various religions with history.

Lurker178
12-02-2011, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by raven11d:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by S-EVANS:
so you would vote for "ability to see/view future events" option then...

what led you to your conclusion, please ?


no, my vote is "something else". it is't 1 of the 3 other options you gave bc :

1. "ability to communicate beyond time and physical means" Jupiter said the time nexus is more Minerva's domain with the maths ad stuff so it's more a skill then a sense, of which Jupiter, as he says himself, doesn't has the hang of it
2. "ability to see/view future events" that can be done through ( some ) PoE's. Altair used it that way and so did Ezio
3. "ability to control the pieces of eden" many ppl have controlled the PoE's. as we saw in the truth puzzles in AC2 a lot of templars used it, among them Ford, Edison, Hitler, Stalin, etc .. and again Altair and Ezio used it too, so did desmond a bit

my answer is sixth sense = knowledge. don't know how they will "show" that in AC3 but like i said Juno said as much in the end of brotherhood when she was talking about creating humans but only giving 5 senses, keeping the 6th aka knowledge for themselves. desmond woke up in ACR and now he knows what needs to be done so he has awaken his 6th sense and now has the knowledge </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But knowledge isn't a "sense". Knowledge is the acquaintance with facts, truths or principles. Knowledge is just simply knowing stuff.

That's why I don't buy into this "The Sixth Sense is knowledge" theory. If Desmond needed knowledge, Juno might as well have said, "Go get the Apple." I mean, why not?

S-EVANS
12-02-2011, 04:21 PM
The disclaimer at the start of every assassins creed title ive purchased says otherwise...

And since the apple is so important lets not forget the religious views of a apple being the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge which would bestow wisdom...

your a hard man to talk to, want a beer (my treat)...

LightRey
12-02-2011, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
The disclaimer at the start of every assassins creed title ive purchased says otherwise...

And since the apple is so important lets not forget the religious views of a apple being the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge which would bestow wisdom...

your a hard man to talk to, want a beer (my treat)...
The disclaimer says it was made by people of various religious beliefs, not that it was based on these beliefs.

S-EVANS
12-02-2011, 04:26 PM
oh my lord, ok would you be willing to accept that since the game is made by people of various religious beliefs it would be safe to assume that its a spirtual story ?

LightRey
12-02-2011, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
oh my lord, ok would you be willing to accept that since the game is made by people of various religious beliefs it would be safe to assume that its a spirtual story ?
No, the disclaimer is there because they say a lot of things, both directly and indirectly, about said beliefs and they could face legal issues if they don't put such a disclaimer there (or if what it says isn't true).

I'm not saying the game isn't spiritual, but it's spirituality has nothing to do with the spirituality of those beliefs per se. It has its own philosophical messages.

S-EVANS
12-02-2011, 04:40 PM
That makes perfect sense, now lets get back to topic...

would you agree that what desmond experiences in altair and ezio is somewhat spirtual (depsite being forced from the anmius) in the manner he relives his ancestors memorys and that the animus provides the engery required to achieve that...

which in turn can be precieved by people as knowledge, knowing what his ancestors did. knowing about TWCB, knowing what he has to do all projected to him by engery

and that you said this in this thread...


My theory is that the sixth sense allows an individual to access a biological internet of sorts. Where all knowledge of people around the world can be accessed. However, this theory is speculation at best.

now if the sense are progressive in nature would you also not agree that desmond could now hold the key to being able to achieve this thanks to a spirtual experience ?

LightRey
12-02-2011, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
That makes perfect sense, now lets get back to topic...

would you agree that what desmond experiences in altair and ezio is somewhat spirtual (depsite being forced from the anmius) in the manner he relives his ancestors memorys and that the animus provides the engery required to achieve that...

which in turn can be precieved by people as knowledge, knowing what his ancestors did. knowing about TWCB, knowing what he has to do all projected to him by engery

and that you said this in this thread...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My theory is that the sixth sense allows an individual to access a biological internet of sorts. Where all knowledge of people around the world can be accessed. However, this theory is speculation at best.

now if the sense are progressive in nature would you also not agree that desmond could now hold the key to being able to achieve this thanks to a spirtual experience ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're just throwing around the word "spiritual" and "energy" without giving it any meaning.

Desmond's experiences in the animus often inspire philosophical revelations, if that's what you mean.

However, I sincerely doubt some kind of "energy" can be gathered from said experiences to "activate" the sixth sense or the apple.
AC has always used science to explain events, not ambiguous mumbo-jumbo about "spirituality" and "energy". As has been stated by Ubi, for humans the ability to use the Sixth Sense is "locked", indicating that one either needs to somehow gain some kind of understanding to unlock it, or one might even have to have their brain physically altered (possibly by use of one or more PoE's for example).

I see no good reason to assume that the sense would be (significantly) progressive in nature either.

S-EVANS
12-02-2011, 04:56 PM
You're just throwing around the word "spiritual" and "energy" without giving it any meaning.

ok off topic i have no other way of explaining this... but my sister died at 13yrs old, (i was 18) in a RTA cut long story short i felt her engery when i was at my lowest but it took her death for my brain to unlock the idea that spirtiual engery could exsist..

back on topic


However, I sincerely doubt some kind of "energy" can be gathered from said experiences to "activate" the sixth sense or the apple.

subject 16 is dead yet his brain lives in the animus, and hes the sixth or are you going to deny that as well ?


I see no good reason to assume that the sense would be (significantly) progressive in nature either.

TWCB > Altair > Ezio > Desmond forgive me here but each version eagle sense gets improved and that in itself is progressive.

LightRey
12-02-2011, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
ok off topic i have no other way of explaining this... but my sister died at 13yrs old, in a RTA cut long story short i felt her engery when i was at my lowest but it took her death for my brain to unlock the idea that spirtiual engery could exsist..

I'm not debating the possibility of the existence of "spiritual energy" I'm debating the lack of definition you're giving it. Both terms are very ambiguous (assuming you're not referring to "energy" as it is defined in physics). Just blatantly using such terms without properly defining them offers little use to a discussion.


Originally posted by S-EVANS:
subject 16 is dead yet his brain lives in the animus, and hes the sixth or are you going to deny that as well ?

He's the what? His brain doesn't live in the animus. As was explained by the devs the S16 we saw in the animus was an imprint of the actual S16. The animus is able to simulate cognitive functions and therefore this imprint was basically a simulation of S16's consciousness. There was nothing spiritual about it.


Originally posted by S-EVANS:
TWCB > Altair > Ezio > Desmond forgive me here but each version eagle sense gets improved and that in itself is progressive.
Eagle Vision and Eagle Sense are imperfect versions of the Sixth Sense, as Juno kindly explained. TWCB had the Sixth Sense. To say that Alta´r and Ezio had "evolved" versions of the Sixth Sense directly contradicts that fact.

UrDeviant1
12-02-2011, 05:09 PM
It could be Eagle Vision. Throughout the AC series, Eagle Vision has progressively got better, In revelations we can now scan a crowd of people to find the target and we can see the routes Templar's take via their footsteps which was In ACB too I think, but now we can differentiate between Templar's and targets.

So Eagle Vision is progressively getting better but it's full potential may not yet be clear, meaning it's not yet awaken.

Another thought I have Is to do with "knowledge". Another thing TWCB had that humans still do not, Is the Intelligence to create something as technologically advanced as A piece of Eden which i think modern day Templars are trying to harness to protect themselves and their equipment ie. their satellites, so that they have some form of control after the flare hits. It's hard to know for sure.

LightRey
12-02-2011, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by UrDeviant1:
It could be Eagle Vision. Throughout the AC series, Eagle Vision has progressively got better, In revelations we can now scan a crowd of people to find the target and we can see the routes Templar's take via their footsteps which was In ACB too I think, but now we can differentiate between Templar's and targets.

So Eagle Vision is progressively getting better but it's full potential may not yet be clear, meaning it's not yet awaken.

Another thought I have Is to do with "knowledge". Another thing TWCB had that humans still do not, Is the Intelligence to create something as technologically advanced as A piece of Eden which i think modern day Templars are trying to harness to protect themselves and their equipment ie. their satellites, so that they have some form of control after the flare hits. It's hard to know for sure.
Interesting thought. There obviously seems to be some connection between TWCB DNA and the ability to use a PoE properly, so you could be on to something.

S-EVANS
12-02-2011, 05:21 PM
Responding to LightRey

all im saying is that some people in this thread pointed out that "knowledge" was the sixth sense...

and you said


My theory is that the sixth sense allows an individual to access a biological internet of sorts. Where all knowledge of people around the world can be accessed. However, this theory is speculation at best.

which actually enforces those peoples point of view that the sixth sense is knowledge based, you used the word yourself.

yet when it appeared to be confirmed you changed your mind and then defended it beyond what both you believe and said to the death.

you claim that AC series is based upon science, well heres a newsflash for you, as far as science goes theres no 6th sense !!!!

LightRey
12-02-2011, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
Responding to LightRey

all im saying is that some people in this thread pointed out that "knowledge" was the sixth sense...

and you said

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My theory is that the sixth sense allows an individual to access a biological internet of sorts. Where all knowledge of people around the world can be accessed. However, this theory is speculation at best.

which actually enforces those peoples point of view that the sixth sense is knowledge based, you used the word yourself.

yet when it appeared to be confirmed you changed your mind and then defended it beyond what both you believe and said to the death and your still doing it now...

you claim that AC series is based upon science, well heres a newsflash for you, as far as science goes theres no 6th sense !!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I did not change my mind. I was simply pointing out that we don't know if it actually is knowledge. All we know is that it somehow pertains to (some form of) knowledge.

As I said my theory is mostly speculation.

As far as science goes we don't know if there is a sixth sense (well actually we do, but it's a little complicated and we'd have to go into the details of how one would define a sense, etc. so let's just keep it at there not being a sixth sense as what it appears to be like in AC).

Ac isn't based upon science, it simply uses it to combine religion with history.

S-EVANS
12-02-2011, 06:24 PM
our beliefs of the 6th sense are all explained away by science, so therefore theres no scientific proof of one...

thus we have to invent one, just like the developers. the best i can come up with is the final scenes when we are told "much remains in flux" now this suggest when you say that TWCB didnt have knowledge. could be true...

my problem lies with if they didnt have knowledge why do they know desmond is key to the puzzle...?

i know from reading interviews with devs that the sixth sense is tied to eagle vision, but i dont know why...

which is why i made the thread, your the main person that fights all views so now im fighting yours. question yourself and what do you get when you do that...?

your accepting that its not knowledge, but its knowledge based so expand on it please!!!

im too now accepting its knowledge based, but wasnt when i made the thread. So if TWCB didnt know what to do but desmond does...

(i need to review all data on subject 16)

that means that TWCB did know what to do, they just knew it couldnt be done in thier lifetime... so they choose to pass the knowledge onto desmond and also knew they needed to interbreed to do that...

im in the same boat as you i cant place knowledge into a 6th sense beyond another persons point of view which is omniscience...

which ive now explained as a possibilty!!!! (assuming TWCB just want to save the world)

im trying to link the entire thread to one conclusion and your trying to unlink it, what i dont know is why...?

unless you make it clearer

LightRey
12-03-2011, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
our beliefs of the 6th sense are all explained away by science, so therefore theres no scientific proof of one...

thus we have to invent one, just like the developers. the best i can come up with is the final scenes when we are told "much remains in flux" now this suggest when you say that TWCB didnt have knowledge. could be true...

my problem lies with if they didnt have knowledge why do they know desmond is key to the puzzle...?

i know from reading interviews with devs that the sixth sense is tied to eagle vision, but i dont know why...

which is why i made the thread, your the main person that fights all views so now im fighting yours. question yourself and what do you get when you do that...?

your accepting that its not knowledge, but its knowledge based so expand on it please!!!

im too now accepting its knowledge based, but wasnt when i made the thread. So if TWCB didnt know what to do but desmond does...

(i need to review all data on subject 16)

that means that TWCB did know what to do, they just knew it couldnt be done in thier lifetime... so they choose to pass the knowledge onto desmond and also knew they needed to interbreed to do that...

im in the same boat as you i cant place knowledge into a 6th sense beyond another persons point of view which is omniscience...

which ive now explained as a possibilty!!!! (assuming TWCB just want to save the world)

im trying to link the entire thread to one conclusion and your trying to unlink it, what i dont know is why...?

unless you make it clearer
Science does not exclude things if there is no proof for them. That's not scientific. Science excludes things for which there is proof that it doesn't exist.

No, it is more than true that TWCB weren't omniscient. Had they been omniscient they'd literally have known everything, meaning that they would all have known the disaster was coming the first time, which they didn't, and they immediately would've known the perfect solution to preventing said event, which they also didn't.

I'm not saying that they didn't have knowledge, I'm saying that what Juno said could very well just mean that the Sixth Sense provides access to more knowledge, not all knowledge or knowledge in general. I believe the proper way of looking at it is to compare it to a blind man getting to see for the first time in his life. There are a lot of things in the world he would not have knowledge of because of his lack of sight.

Of course TWCB knew what to do, they just did't know if it would work. As Jupiter said, they've already tried 6 different methods and failed. Had they known the solution from the start they would've used it then.

They know more, not everything.

You. Are. Wrong. Accept it and get over yourself.

S-EVANS
12-05-2011, 07:08 PM
The Sixth Sense is The Third Eye...


Traditionally the third eye is used by people that are interested in working towards planetary peace. All of the work is guided by your spirit guide


The third eye development, imagination and visualization are important ingredients in many methods to separate from the physical form. Intuition is also achieved through the third eye. Knowledge and memory of the astral plane are not registered in a fully wakened consciousness until the intuition becomes strong enough. Flashes of intuition come with increasing consistency as the third eye is activated to a greater degree, through practice


thats just two religous/spiritual quotes theres plenty more on the internet, take a look google the "3rd eye" make you own minds upim not forcing my findings...

but after 1hr of research i can connect the entire assassin creed titles to the 3rd eye one way or another!!

LightRey
12-05-2011, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
The Sixth Sense is The Third Eye...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Traditionally the third eye is used by people that are interested in working towards planetary peace. All of the work is guided by your spirit guide


The third eye development, imagination and visualization are important ingredients in many methods to separate from the physical form. Intuition is also achieved through the third eye. Knowledge and memory of the astral plane are not registered in a fully wakened consciousness until the intuition becomes strong enough. Flashes of intuition come with increasing consistency as the third eye is activated to a greater degree, through practice


thats just two religous/spiritual quotes theres plenty more on the internet, take a look google the "3rd eye" make you own minds upim not forcing my findings...

but after 1hr of research i can connect the entire assassin creed titles to the 3rd eye one way or another!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Any accurate, universal descriptions you happen to have come across regarding this Third Eye?

UrDeviant1
12-05-2011, 07:17 PM
I read something about Altair today from the in-game menu's database. I can't remember exactly what it said and my xbox is turned off but it's worth you checking out. It said something along the lines of...

The Creed knew Altair was special some how, like he had a sixth sense which the assassins dubbed 'eagle vision'.

So maybe awakening the sixth really is just unlocking 'eagle visions' true potential. Maybe the most simple answer could be the correct answer? I dunno', can't wait to find out for sure.

S-EVANS
12-05-2011, 07:19 PM
well it connects the entire thread, from knowledge, intuition, eagle vision, etc...

ive read half a dozen sites this is one of the most indepth ones

View website... (http://www.mysticalempowerment.com/6th_sense_2.htm)

im not sure what you will think of it, but i swear ive spent an hour at least researching it and it sure relates/connects the ACstoryline

it makes sense anyway

LightRey
12-05-2011, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
well it connects the entire thread, from knowledge, intuition, eagle vision, etc...

ive read half a dozen sites this is one of the most indepth ones

View website... (http://www.mysticalempowerment.com/6th_sense_2.htm)

im not sure what you will think of it, but i swear ive spent an hour at least researching it and it sure relates/connects the ACstoryline

it makes sense anyway
Still seems rather vague tbh. However it is in a way quite similar to Eagle Vision/Sense.

S-EVANS
12-05-2011, 07:27 PM
i know but just read some stuff...


The person being tested has to describe the object and the place it has been hidden.


eagle vision tells ezio where hidden doors are, thats just one example. im still reading tons of sites, but it really does link to the game. anyway i have to go bed its 2am gone talk to you 2moro

Agentbarto
12-05-2011, 08:54 PM
Here's something I was contemplating on another thread; the concept of time travel as an explanation for why TWCB have such prophetic predictions. Light; I believe we've spoken about this already but here's what stumps me.


"There seems to be gaps in the knowledge of all 3 "gods". Juno, Minerva, and Jupiter all lack knowledge of future events such as what will happen once Desmond enters the Grand Temple, but knew and implemented certain factors which will lead Desmond to the Grand Temple. This lack of complete knowledge can be explained in two ways.

One; they only predicted so much before their civilization fell and the technology was locked away.

Two; Minerva may not have explicitly stated a lack of knowledge and my interpretation of her cryptic warning of "guarding against the cross" may therefore be incorrect. This would coincide with Jupiter's excuse for his awkwardness in the "Time-Field", by confirming that out of the three of them only Minerva could perceive time more clearly than they could.

I suppose given their advanced technology it would be possibly to fully conceptualize "time" in every instance, thus allowing them to predict what we feel is unpredictable. I dunno food for thought."

Regarding Eagle Vision, while I do agree that it is a degenerated version of the Sixth Sense referenced by Juno, with Eagle Sense being one step closer to the Sixth, I just don't see how you make the leap from accurate predictions based on heightened awareness to straight up prophetic fore-tellings specifically naming one individual known as Desmond. By the limitations of the "sense" itself, it seems you cannot known everything beyond a certain amount of time as defined by a "cause-effect" relationship. However it is equally unlikely (at least if Ubi is abiding by some of the laws and theories of physics and time travel respectively) that TWCB could predict and know something for certain; i.e. Desmond's name. This would be an example of Laplace's Demon; something long discredited by Quantum Theorists.

There's one thing I'm not considering. The Animus, and the Apple. Because the Animus's genetic tech. was reverse-engineered from the genetic fingerprinting technology of the Apple. It is possible that Minerva's true message only referenced Desmond, saying something like "it's up to you _________" with the Animus filling in the blank as it seems to often do when communicating with the user. Who knows I still don't buy this argument though as Ezio reacts to it; which means the name was in fact spoken aloud, long before Desmond's birth.

S-EVANS
12-06-2011, 04:06 AM
One; they only predicted so much before their civilization fell and the technology was locked away.

Reminds me of the mayan calendar, which as we know ends 2012 but we no obvious reason as to why but is explained to end because civilization falls.

back on track...


I just don't see how you make the leap from accurate predictions based on heightened awareness to straight up prophetic fore-tellings specifically naming one individual known as Desmond.

well in the final cutscenes whilst Tinia explains that the time nexus is strange to him because Minerva always handled calculations he actually calls desmond a "cipher" rather than by his name, but appears to know him when he sees him...

why doesnt he call him desmond ?

a cipher in its general form; is a code and the whole game unlocks genetic codes in DNA but it still doesnt answer how a genetic code can predict a persons name.

i can see how your arriving at the Animus theory, but you also got me in a deadlock with the fact ezio reacts to the name desmond, etc...

altair and ezio therefore act as conduit's so my best offering at this stage is that all the games characters followed a path of searching for truth (spiritual path) resulting in a connection beyond the physical word and ezio gains insight of desmonds name...

you got me going round in circles here, at this point i cant think beyond that level http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LightRey
12-06-2011, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by Agentbarto:
Here's something I was contemplating on another thread; the concept of time travel as an explanation for why TWCB have such prophetic predictions. Light; I believe we've spoken about this already but here's what stumps me.


"There seems to be gaps in the knowledge of all 3 "gods". Juno, Minerva, and Jupiter all lack knowledge of future events such as what will happen once Desmond enters the Grand Temple, but knew and implemented certain factors which will lead Desmond to the Grand Temple. This lack of complete knowledge can be explained in two ways.

One; they only predicted so much before their civilization fell and the technology was locked away.

Two; Minerva may not have explicitly stated a lack of knowledge and my interpretation of her cryptic warning of "guarding against the cross" may therefore be incorrect. This would coincide with Jupiter's excuse for his awkwardness in the "Time-Field", by confirming that out of the three of them only Minerva could perceive time more clearly than they could.

I suppose given their advanced technology it would be possibly to fully conceptualize "time" in every instance, thus allowing them to predict what we feel is unpredictable. I dunno food for thought."

Regarding Eagle Vision, while I do agree that it is a degenerated version of the Sixth Sense referenced by Juno, with Eagle Sense being one step closer to the Sixth, I just don't see how you make the leap from accurate predictions based on heightened awareness to straight up prophetic fore-tellings specifically naming one individual known as Desmond. By the limitations of the "sense" itself, it seems you cannot known everything beyond a certain amount of time as defined by a "cause-effect" relationship. However it is equally unlikely (at least if Ubi is abiding by some of the laws and theories of physics and time travel respectively) that TWCB could predict and know something for certain; i.e. Desmond's name. This would be an example of Laplace's Demon; something long discredited by Quantum Theorists.

There's one thing I'm not considering. The Animus, and the Apple. Because the Animus's genetic tech. was reverse-engineered from the genetic fingerprinting technology of the Apple. It is possible that Minerva's true message only referenced Desmond, saying something like "it's up to you _________" with the Animus filling in the blank as it seems to often do when communicating with the user. Who knows I still don't buy this argument though as Ezio reacts to it; which means the name was in fact spoken aloud, long before Desmond's birth.
The problem with this is that you're assuming that their ability to predict lies in the power of the sixth sense, which could very well not be the case. I think it's quite probable, especially considering Jupiter's comment on how things like the Time Nexus have to do with "Calculations", that they are simply able to use their knowledge of physics and mathematics to (very) accurately estimate what will happen if certain conditions are met.

Markie577
12-06-2011, 07:25 AM
Well apparently according to information from abstergo, eagle sense is a sort of sixth sense. Read the part of subjects in de animus database multiplayer

S-EVANS
12-06-2011, 08:02 AM
Well apparently according to information from abstergo, eagle sense is a sort of sixth sense. Read the part of subjects in de animus database <span class="ev_code_BLUE">multiplayer</span>

so how do we apply science to the sixth sense ? now in Lightreys case (he likes or prefers to work along science rather than my approach which is more open-minded) he claimed it to be a sort of biological internet, now the best way i have ever connect that theory to science is like this.

People are connected by DNA which is the scientific term for a biological internet. In other words humanity..

Now he suggests that the sixth sense allows people to access everyones DNA, and therefore memories which the game claims is locked away

now i understand all that...

but its more a scientific explanation of understanding mankind via DNA rather than a sense. i dont understand how he connects that to a sense, but im sure hes tried explaining and i just dont understand it...

My feeling of the sixth sense is its a spirtual aspect of being but again i have same problem i cant connect it to a sense i spent ages last night trying to link loads for example the third eye...

now science can explain what the 3rd eye is considered to be, and spirtual people believe its a actual sense but cant connect it scientifically.

because they feel they dont need to probably...

and i like to have a scientific link to help prove what things are too. the game as suggested maintains usage of science to link everything together despite also exploring non scientific material along the way.

Now eagle vision is more a spirtual type of aspect in my eyes, how does science explain without touching upon spirtual content that a person (desmond) can predict a guards path ?

but the developers and the game suggest that eagle vision is directly linked to the sixth sense, not that it is the sixth sense..

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">cant you link me to it im not playing multiplayer AC!!!</span>

Agentbarto
12-06-2011, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agentbarto:
There's one thing I'm not considering. The Animus, and the Apple. Because the Animus's genetic tech. was reverse-engineered from the genetic fingerprinting technology of the Apple. It is possible that Minerva's true message only referenced Desmond, saying something like "it's up to you _________" with the Animus filling in the blank as it seems to often do when communicating with the user. Who knows I still don't buy this argument though as Ezio reacts to it; which means the name was in fact spoken aloud, long before Desmond's birth.
The problem with this is that you're assuming that their ability to predict lies in the power of the sixth sense, which could very well not be the case. I think it's quite probable, especially considering Jupiter's comment on how things like the Time Nexus have to do with "Calculations", that they are simply able to use their knowledge of physics and mathematics to (very) accurately estimate what will happen if certain conditions are met. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess so, but why only predict some things like Desmond's name and not who "lies not within [their] sight..."?

PS: Just to add a bit of fire to the flame;saw this on Wormhole. Might be a bridge between Light's argument and Evans'. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project)

LightRey
12-06-2011, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Agentbarto:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agentbarto:
There's one thing I'm not considering. The Animus, and the Apple. Because the Animus's genetic tech. was reverse-engineered from the genetic fingerprinting technology of the Apple. It is possible that Minerva's true message only referenced Desmond, saying something like "it's up to you _________" with the Animus filling in the blank as it seems to often do when communicating with the user. Who knows I still don't buy this argument though as Ezio reacts to it; which means the name was in fact spoken aloud, long before Desmond's birth.
The problem with this is that you're assuming that their ability to predict lies in the power of the sixth sense, which could very well not be the case. I think it's quite probable, especially considering Jupiter's comment on how things like the Time Nexus have to do with "Calculations", that they are simply able to use their knowledge of physics and mathematics to (very) accurately estimate what will happen if certain conditions are met. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess so, but why only predict some things like Desmond's name and not who "lies not within [their] sight..."?

PS: Just to add a bit of fire to the flame;saw this on Wormhole. Might be a bridge between Light's argument and Evans'. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You might be reading a little too much into that phrase, but you have a point.

Awesome link btw.

S-EVANS
12-06-2011, 10:20 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif thankyou for the additional fire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

im currently exploring the basics of what defines a sense and stripping it down since i have nothing else to do with my time today, and so far ive come up with...

all cause a chemical reaction in the brain http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

UrDeviant1
12-06-2011, 10:45 AM
Can't the sixth sense (eagle vision?) be linked to Desmond's TWCB DNA? His genetic makeup? In which case it could be explained by science and be non spiritual.

LightRey
12-06-2011, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by UrDeviant1:
Can't the sixth sense (eagle vision?) be linked to Desmond's TWCB DNA? His genetic makeup? In which case it could be explained by science and be non spiritual.
Well not entirely. Though people with TWCB have easier access to the Sixth Sense, it's apparently available (though locked) to all humans.

However everything should have a scientific explanation. Things that are consideres "spiritual" are generally either simply people seeing things that aren't there or things that have yet to be explained by science.

S-EVANS
12-06-2011, 03:28 PM
Is "free will" a sense...?

quick definition of free will is to act without any rescritions/constraints.

now reason im asking peoples thoughts on this, is im trying to go back to basic as far as senses go. right back to original questions like what is a human sense. Current sense's all share similiar patterns for example themost obvious is they all allow us as humans to function, and for example they all cause a chemical reaction to our brain.

(example-taste; the chemical reaction in this human sense are created by odours/smells mostly)

so each sense links together in order to make us function, however we know the 1st civilization kept a 6th sense behind, so that sense for conversations sake doesnt make us function. So by doing that we are functional slaves, what if the 6th sense is free will?

and adam and eve unlocked this sense of free will hence why they choose to escape, and why TWCB & Humans were at war, humans in effect are now fighting for freedom, right to free will.

The first civilization (truth video) seem to control humans as slaves with the apple (PoE) If the apple controls the brains receptors thus suppressing free will it begins to make sense <<<< LOL SENSE!!!

all humans have the ability of unlocking the sixth sense, if allowed to escape the control of the apples power...

all this of course requires that "free will" is a human sense ???

So thoughts/comments please, what do you think ???

<span class="ev_code_RED">[EDIT]</span> how does eagle vision link to free will?

UrDeviant1
12-06-2011, 03:54 PM
I don't think 'free will' is a sense. Most people on earth have 'free will' to do what they want, no matter the consequence. Personally I'd take 'sense' as another sensation, like sight and hearing etc.

Right now I'm leaning more towards the sixth sense being a better evolved ability to see, an ultimate version of eagle vision, where maybe we don't just see what's there In front of us, but what has been and what is to come, which in a way can be seen as 'knowledge'

S-EVANS
12-06-2011, 03:57 PM
Well gimme another few hours just about to re-read this (http://www.optimal.org/peter/freewill.htm) again and see if i can link eagle vision to all that more than once...

so far of the top of my head i have only got one idea and thats eagle visions ability in revelation shows guard trails, and free will provides us with options on how to respond to that.. we choose basically interesting to me is i thought the 6th sense may be progressive and the linked webpage claims free will is progressive.

anyway let me start reading again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


Most people on earth have 'free will' to do what they want, no matter the consequence.

we dont actually do that to be honest theres constraints to it. im suggesting true free will is soemthing different, i get back to you thanks for answering me

UrDeviant1
12-06-2011, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
Well gimme another few hours just about to re-read this (http://www.optimal.org/peter/freewill.htm) again and see if i can link eagle vision to all that more than once...

so far of the top of my head i have only got one idea and thats eagle visions ability in revelation shows guard trails, and free will provides us with options on how to respond to that.. we choose basically interesting to me is i thought the 6th sense may be progressive and the linked webpage claims free will is progressive.

anyway let me start reading again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Most people on earth have 'free will' to do what they want, no matter the consequence.

we dont actually do that to be honest theres constraints to it. im suggesting true free will is soemthing different, i get back to you thanks for answering me </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eagle vision could be progressive, i mean, in every AC game the eagle vision has progressively gotten better so it's a possibility i think. I personally don't think there are constraints to free will, the way i see it is, if i wanted to go out and do something - anything, then i could but i'd have to suffer the consequent's.

I like the fact you're really looking into this though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It's interesting.

blazefp
12-06-2011, 05:00 PM
Well I'm in no mood to read all the 5 pages so sry to break into your discussion like this.

I'll tell you my thoughts on the 6th sense matter but for that I have to explain 2 or 3 things first so be patient.

A human brain is awesome, makes mindblowing calculations with incredible precision in fractions of seconds. I'm talking about jumps, punches, or basically anything we do. For example, for Hulk (Porto's football player) to kick a ball at 100 km/h to the top right corner of the goal from 40 meters away, his brain has to do maths that he can't even imagine, literally. The direction and speed of the wind, the density of the air, the flexibility and size of the ball, what "ingredients" his leg has to "eat" so that it can hit the ball correctly, where to hit the ball, the angle this has to make, etc etc etc^99
Of course he can't rationally calculate all of that (I'm sure he got some trouble finishing high school, just as most professional football players do) but unconsciously his brain does all the maths and does it right and very accurately. Actually I don't think none of us could determinate all the data needed to such shoot.

Anyway my point is, the 6th sense is the perception of this "locked" knowledge already inside us. If somehow we could "read" our brain's language, we could understand every single step it makes enabling us a apparent* supernatural intelligence and complete control over our body and indirectly over other stuff.

This is what I think the 6th sense is. This would really be a huge power. With such knowledge we could, for example, throw a throwing knife to a fly as far as our strength enables us. And even the strength could be measured/controlled with all the chemical reactions and, as I said, with all the "ingredients" our body needs at the right time, in the right place, with the right amount

*I say "apparent" cuz it can't be supernatural since we have it, we just don't know how to unlock it

And with this, I'm going to bed. Catch ya tomorrow

LightRey
12-06-2011, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by blazefp:
Well I'm in no mood to read all the 5 pages so sry to break into your discussion like this.

I'll tell you my thoughts on the 6th sense matter but for that I have to explain 2 or 3 things first so be patient.

A human brain is awesome, makes mindblowing calculations with incredible precision in fractions of seconds. I'm talking about jumps, punches, or basically anything we do. For example, for Hulk (Porto's football player) to kick a ball at 100 km/h to the top right corner of the goal from 40 meters away, his brain has to do maths that he can't even imagine, literally. The direction and speed of the wind, the density of the air, the flexibility and size of the ball, what "ingredients" his leg has to "eat" so that it can hit the ball correctly, where to hit the ball, the angle this has to make, etc etc etc^99
Of course he can't rationally calculate all of that (I'm sure he got some trouble finishing high school, just as most professional football players do) but unconsciously his brain does all the maths and does it right and very accurately. Actually I don't think none of us could determinate all the data needed to such shoot.

Anyway my point is, the 6th sense is the perception of this "locked" knowledge already inside us. If somehow we could "read" our brain's language, we could understand every single step it makes enabling us a apparent* supernatural intelligence and complete control over our body and indirectly over other stuff.

This is what I think the 6th sense is. This would really be a huge power. With such knowledge we could, for example, throw a throwing knife to a fly as far as our strength enables us. And even the strength could be measured/controlled with all the chemical reactions and, as I said, with all the "ingredients" our body needs at the right time, in the right place, with the right amount

*I say "apparent" cuz it can't be supernatural since we have it, we just don't know how to unlock it

And with this, I'm going to bed. Catch ya tomorrow
Interesting take. The Sixth Sense being the ability to turn subconscious into conscious sounds very interesting.

Sarari
12-06-2011, 05:38 PM
Just like Alta´r's name means "bird" or "the flying" depending on how it's written, whilst his last name has nothing to do with that either.
I speak arabic. Altair means the flyer, or the flying eagle. So his last name would say The Flying Eagle, Son of none.

S-EVANS
12-06-2011, 06:02 PM
OK i cant connect it to science - how come he gets to go to bed lightrey what makes him so special...

his thoery is all spiritual....

wheres the sciene, you said it was interesting, so help me your online

<span class="ev_code_RED">[edit] </span> im going to bed because i cant stay awake anymore but i cant link science to different states of conscious without going spiritual!!!

OculusRed
12-06-2011, 07:05 PM
A sense in this context is an ability that allows humans to perceive the world around them, to sense it. The sixth sense is knowledge, and allows humans to perceive information, hence why enemies appear red, allied blue, and targets gold. No to mention paths of enemies and targets. This is implied when Minerva was talking with Desmond through Ezio. To do that, she must have been able to perceive or predict the future to an extent.

OculusRed
12-06-2011, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by UrDeviant1:
Can't the sixth sense (eagle vision?) be linked to Desmond's TWCB DNA? His genetic makeup? In which case it could be explained by science and be non spiritual.
Well not entirely. Though people with TWCB have easier access to the Sixth Sense, it's apparently available (though locked) to all humans.

However everything should have a scientific explanation. Things that are consideres "spiritual" are generally either simply people seeing things that aren't there or things that have yet to be explained by science. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Our science is based off our perception of the world through our five senses, what makes you think it can explain the sixth?

Agentbarto
12-06-2011, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by UrDeviant1:
Can't the sixth sense (eagle vision?) be linked to Desmond's TWCB DNA? His genetic makeup? In which case it could be explained by science and be non spiritual.
Well not entirely. Though people with TWCB have easier access to the Sixth Sense, it's apparently available (though locked) to all humans.

However everything should have a scientific explanation. Things that are consideres "spiritual" are generally either simply people seeing things that aren't there or things that have yet to be explained by science. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's tough man I agree that science can explain most things in the universe, but I think that at some fundamental level science blends with spiritualist philosophies of the universe. For example everything has to come from something right? Atoms are based on quarks. Currently it is thought that quarks are the fundamental particles of the universe; in other words, they can't be broken down. Now you can either say, that everything can be broken down infinitesimally and we simply haven't made the technological advancements necessary to further break down the laws of physics. Or, you posit that quarks are congealed energy (for the most part), and if quarks simply came from energy and the right laws of physics, then where did the energy that gave rise to the quarks originate? It's somewhat cyclical, and I think that at some point there is either a beginning and an end; and those two points in time are so unimaginably distant we cannot currently conceive the amount of time in between, or there was once a beginning and an end and the metaverse eventually became self-sustaining. (Bear with me here, I'm assuming we've all heard some string theory or multiverse theory; and I'm assuming we all agree with some aspects of either.)

That being said maybe as scientists we'll just say "our brains hurt." (Just kidding, BUT we will begin to ask why not just how; "why" being something currently discussed only philosophy and certain abstractions of scientific data.

In reference to subconscious -> conscious conversion it is plausible given the existence of Low Latent Inhibition.

S-EVANS
12-07-2011, 02:59 AM
Well i do accept the subconscious to conscious conversion and it links well too. It didnt at first link to eagle vision like i wanted it too (or) thought how it should link to it...

But that doesnt mean anything maybe its the best way to represent it and how eagle vision looks as OculusRed has mentioned, hence why enemies appear red, allied blue, and targets gold.

now as humans we do that anyway, we walk into a room of people and mens subconscious striaght away work out things like whos the best looking woman, etc.. women do it better there not only look at whos the best looking man, but more whos the best looking woman too and the biggest threat to me. whilst who we consider to be good candidate for love (lack of better word) doesnt start glowing gold, we attach ourselves to the the target in a different manner.

and thats a result of our conscious mind, take a stopping drinking for example...

subconscious, mind is a baby it wants, what it wants without question... and our conscious mind has to fight it and say look im in control of my own mind and i want to stop drinking, but the subconscious will always want it...

so in this respect being able to control them both is impossible so too speak.


now in the case of kicking a football its all learnt though training, repeating this training makes your mind over time remember all the factors required to make that degree of a shot. (trial and error) in much the same way an assassin learns how to adapt his killing techniques through training (recruiting assassins, etc) (al-mualim taught altair) (altair taught desmond) so on so forth.

but its a decent enough theory for me to add it to my personal options of what the sixth sense is. since every option i think of has a flaw of some type it would be silly not to consider as another option.

will be interesting to see if anyone gets it right when we finally find out the truth http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

blazefp
12-07-2011, 08:49 AM
@S-EVANS I know it's all training but that's just the brain getting his calculations right or our senses getting the numbers right.

What I mean with this theory is that our brain knows subconsciously things that we don't even know they exist. He makes the maths with the values our senses (vision, touching, etc etc) give him. The trial and error thing is just our senses (they work like sensors basically) getting the right values since this changes every fractions of second.

If our brain didn't know what proteins/fibers/whatever to use every single fraction of fraction of a second we would die in no time.

So no, it's not spiritual nor fictional. We actually have some knowledge inside us we don't know about. Why don't we know about it? Cuz it's in a part of the brain our consciousness can't get/change, for example the cerebellum or the spinal cord (yeah that thing actually takes control of parts of our body).

Could we really access this information in some unknown way to me(through some technological gadjet or bleeding effect or something)? I have no idea, that's definitely something too complicated for me to understand. Ask Light_Rey xD

So to conclude, do we have this knowledge? Yes. Can we unlock it? No f****** idea.
It fits http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OculusRed
12-07-2011, 02:20 PM
You know, I just realized this could be related to concepts from Greek philosophy.

The ancient Greek philosophers like Socrates and Plato and whatnot, believed that all knowledge is preexisting in the mind. The believed all knowledge was there, but had to unlocked. They attribute that "Aha!" lightbulb moment to this effect, the unblocking of hidden knowledge you already possessed. The key was to ask the right questions.

This also led to a disdain for the physical since they believed human perception was divorced from reality. That in turn led to a disdain for proving things with experimentation ("You don't need to do that! Everything you need is right up here in your noggin") Thus stalling the advance of science for over a thousand years as their thinking dug into the minds of Europe. But that's a discussion for another time.

Eagle Vision, an expression of the sixth sense, is looking into this "Universal Soul" as I believe Socrates called it. All knowledge, though the view of the Assassins is limited. Juno implied that humans didn't have the ability nearly as powerful as TWCB did.

UrDeviant1
12-07-2011, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by OculusRed:
You know, I just realized this could be related to concepts from Greek philosophy.

The ancient Greek philosophers like Socrates and Plato and whatnot, believed that all knowledge is preexisting in the mind. The believed all knowledge was there, but had to unlocked. They attribute that "Aha!" lightbulb moment to this effect, the unblocking of hidden knowledge you already possessed. The key was to ask the right questions.

This also led to a disdain for the physical since they believed human perception was divorced from reality. That in turn led to a disdain for proving things with experimentation ("You don't need to do that! Everything you need is right up here in your noggin") Thus stalling the advance of science for over a thousand years as their thinking dug into the minds of Europe. But that's a discussion for another time.

Eagle Vision, an expression of the sixth sense, is looking into this "Universal Soul" as I believe Socrates called it. All knowledge, though the view of the Assassins is limited. Juno implied that humans didn't have the ability nearly as powerful as TWCB did.

I like this idea of all knowledge preexisting in our minds, but needing to be unlocked.

OculusRed
12-07-2011, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by UrDeviant1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OculusRed:
You know, I just realized this could be related to concepts from Greek philosophy.

The ancient Greek philosophers like Socrates and Plato and whatnot, believed that all knowledge is preexisting in the mind. The believed all knowledge was there, but had to unlocked. They attribute that "Aha!" lightbulb moment to this effect, the unblocking of hidden knowledge you already possessed. The key was to ask the right questions.

This also led to a disdain for the physical since they believed human perception was divorced from reality. That in turn led to a disdain for proving things with experimentation ("You don't need to do that! Everything you need is right up here in your noggin") Thus stalling the advance of science for over a thousand years as their thinking dug into the minds of Europe. But that's a discussion for another time.

Eagle Vision, an expression of the sixth sense, is looking into this "Universal Soul" as I believe Socrates called it. All knowledge, though the view of the Assassins is limited. Juno implied that humans didn't have the ability nearly as powerful as TWCB did.

I like this idea of all knowledge preexisting in our minds, but needing to be unlocked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, it didn't really work. The Greeks thought that if it made sense in your head it was true. The Greeks ended up being wrong about a lot of things.

UrDeviant1
12-07-2011, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by OculusRed:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by UrDeviant1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OculusRed:
You know, I just realized this could be related to concepts from Greek philosophy.

The ancient Greek philosophers like Socrates and Plato and whatnot, believed that all knowledge is preexisting in the mind. The believed all knowledge was there, but had to unlocked. They attribute that "Aha!" lightbulb moment to this effect, the unblocking of hidden knowledge you already possessed. The key was to ask the right questions.

This also led to a disdain for the physical since they believed human perception was divorced from reality. That in turn led to a disdain for proving things with experimentation ("You don't need to do that! Everything you need is right up here in your noggin") Thus stalling the advance of science for over a thousand years as their thinking dug into the minds of Europe. But that's a discussion for another time.

Eagle Vision, an expression of the sixth sense, is looking into this "Universal Soul" as I believe Socrates called it. All knowledge, though the view of the Assassins is limited. Juno implied that humans didn't have the ability nearly as powerful as TWCB did.

I like this idea of all knowledge preexisting in our minds, but needing to be unlocked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, it didn't really work. The Greeks thought that if it made sense in your head it was true. The Greeks ended up being wrong about a lot of things. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's still an interesting thought. I remember Vidic talking to Desmond In AC1 saying the memories of his ancestors were all there in his mind even though he does not know it, and the Animus could extract those memories (help Desmond to remember). Vidic also mentioned that Desmond isnt the only one with this locked knowledge in his mind.

S-EVANS
12-07-2011, 02:56 PM
So to conclude, do we have this knowledge? Yes. Can we unlock it? No idea.
It fits

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No arguements from me, i love the idea as i say its one of the top favourites suggested (in my list of possibles for sure) and i wasnt trying to dismiss it. more thinking out aloud and sharing those thoughts.

blazefp
12-07-2011, 03:05 PM
Oh alright xD lol cool then

Agentbarto
12-07-2011, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
now as humans we do that anyway, we walk into a room of people and mens subconscious striaght away work out things like whos the best looking woman, etc.. women do it better there not only look at whos the best looking man, but more whos the best looking woman too and the biggest threat to me. whilst who we consider to be good candidate for love (lack of better word) doesnt start glowing gold, we attach ourselves to the the target in a different manner.

and thats a result of our conscious mind, take a stopping drinking for example...

subconscious, mind is a baby it wants, what it wants without question... and our conscious mind has to fight it and say look im in control of my own mind and i want to stop drinking, but the subconscious will always want it...

so in this respect being able to control them both is impossible so too speak.



This all sounds a bit like River Tam...

LightRey
12-07-2011, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Agentbarto:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by UrDeviant1:
Can't the sixth sense (eagle vision?) be linked to Desmond's TWCB DNA? His genetic makeup? In which case it could be explained by science and be non spiritual.
Well not entirely. Though people with TWCB have easier access to the Sixth Sense, it's apparently available (though locked) to all humans.

However everything should have a scientific explanation. Things that are consideres "spiritual" are generally either simply people seeing things that aren't there or things that have yet to be explained by science. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's tough man I agree that science can explain most things in the universe, but I think that at some fundamental level science blends with spiritualist philosophies of the universe. For example everything has to come from something right? Atoms are based on quarks. Currently it is thought that quarks are the fundamental particles of the universe; in other words, they can't be broken down. Now you can either say, that everything can be broken down infinitesimally and we simply haven't made the technological advancements necessary to further break down the laws of physics. Or, you posit that quarks are congealed energy (for the most part), and if quarks simply came from energy and the right laws of physics, then where did the energy that gave rise to the quarks originate? It's somewhat cyclical, and I think that at some point there is either a beginning and an end; and those two points in time are so unimaginably distant we cannot currently conceive the amount of time in between, or there was once a beginning and an end and the metaverse eventually became self-sustaining. (Bear with me here, I'm assuming we've all heard some string theory or multiverse theory; and I'm assuming we all agree with some aspects of either.)

That being said maybe as scientists we'll just say "our brains hurt." (Just kidding, BUT we will begin to ask why not just how; "why" being something currently discussed only philosophy and certain abstractions of scientific data.

In reference to subconscious -> conscious conversion it is plausible given the existence of Low Latent Inhibition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Science has nothing to do with the why. Science doesn't even assume there is a why. After all, the concept of there being "reasons" for events is something made up purely by humans. In the end science, by definition, can (but possibly never truly will and even if it will we'll never be certain if it does) fully describe everything in existence. It just won't be able to give you any reason other than "this is the way it works and that's why it works this way", which is arguably reason enough.

Agentbarto
12-07-2011, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agentbarto:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by UrDeviant1:
Can't the sixth sense (eagle vision?) be linked to Desmond's TWCB DNA? His genetic makeup? In which case it could be explained by science and be non spiritual.
Well not entirely. Though people with TWCB have easier access to the Sixth Sense, it's apparently available (though locked) to all humans.

However everything should have a scientific explanation. Things that are consideres "spiritual" are generally either simply people seeing things that aren't there or things that have yet to be explained by science. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's tough man I agree that science can explain most things in the universe, but I think that at some fundamental level science blends with spiritualist philosophies of the universe. For example everything has to come from something right? Atoms are based on quarks. Currently it is thought that quarks are the fundamental particles of the universe; in other words, they can't be broken down. Now you can either say, that everything can be broken down infinitesimally and we simply haven't made the technological advancements necessary to further break down the laws of physics. Or, you posit that quarks are congealed energy (for the most part), and if quarks simply came from energy and the right laws of physics, then where did the energy that gave rise to the quarks originate? It's somewhat cyclical, and I think that at some point there is either a beginning and an end; and those two points in time are so unimaginably distant we cannot currently conceive the amount of time in between, or there was once a beginning and an end and the metaverse eventually became self-sustaining. (Bear with me here, I'm assuming we've all heard some string theory or multiverse theory; and I'm assuming we all agree with some aspects of either.)

That being said maybe as scientists we'll just say "our brains hurt." (Just kidding, BUT we will begin to ask why not just how; "why" being something currently discussed only philosophy and certain abstractions of scientific data.

In reference to subconscious -> conscious conversion it is plausible given the existence of Low Latent Inhibition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Science has nothing to do with the why. Science doesn't even assume there is a why. After all, the concept of there being "reasons" for events is something made up purely by humans. In the end science, by definition, can (but possibly never truly will and even if it will we'll never be certain if it does) fully describe everything in existence. It just won't be able to give you any reason other than "this is the way it works and that's why it works this way", which is arguably reason enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Light, I agree but you missed my point; I'm positing an eventuality, not things at the level we are currently researching.

LightRey
12-07-2011, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Agentbarto:
Light, I agree but you missed my point; I'm positing an eventuality, not things at the level we are currently researching.
Me neither, but you're kinda wrong on the whole quarks, etc. matter.

Quantum physics makes what you say completely invalid as it's no longer speaking in the sense of "particles" being at a determinable location, or any sense of the classical view of particles for that matter.

S-EVANS
12-07-2011, 06:14 PM
River Tam

Explain - i dont know river tam ???? what is river tam ???

Agentbarto
12-07-2011, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agentbarto:
Light, I agree but you missed my point; I'm positing an eventuality, not things at the level we are currently researching.
Me neither, but you're kinda wrong on the whole quarks, etc. matter.

Quantum physics makes what you say completely invalid as it's no longer speaking in the sense of "particles" being at a determinable location, or any sense of the classical view of particles for that matter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The actions of quantum physics are probably based on laws that act similar to how permutations might act no?


Originally posted by S-EVANS:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">River Tam

Explain - i dont know river tam ???? what is river tam ??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

River Tam from Firefly experienced a sort heightened awareness that bordered on precognition (or it seemed like it did, relative to the information processing speed of others); this was all due to her innately high IQ and the complete severing of her amygdala. This is proposed to have caused her to analyze all the information of her environment pretty rapidly and act in accordance; however because this is still sensory overload she was prone to fits of psychosis and often exhibited higher thought fatigue. (She acted on a more instinctive level)

Edit: Oops spoilers...

OculusRed
12-07-2011, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">River Tam

Explain - i dont know river tam ???? what is river tam ??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>A character from Firefly, played by Summer Glau

She's a half insane psychic that rambles crypticly.

UrDeviant1
12-07-2011, 06:36 PM
Particles being in more than one place at the same time, turning our understanding of the universe upside down?! Noooooo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

LightRey
12-07-2011, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Agentbarto:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agentbarto:
Light, I agree but you missed my point; I'm positing an eventuality, not things at the level we are currently researching.
Me neither, but you're kinda wrong on the whole quarks, etc. matter.

Quantum physics makes what you say completely invalid as it's no longer speaking in the sense of "particles" being at a determinable location, or any sense of the classical view of particles for that matter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The actions of quantum physics are probably based on laws that act similar to how permutations might act no?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Permutations of what exactly?

Agentbarto
12-07-2011, 06:47 PM
Of more fundamental laws and equations. Think about it; randomness is often observed because we cannot conceive of a fundamental truth. Would you ever guess that pea pods are fruits? No most of us call them vegetables, but they're fruits; same goes for pumpkins technically being berries.

My point is this you stated earlier


Originally posted by LightRey:
I think it's quite probable, especially considering Jupiter's comment on how things like the Time Nexus have to do with "Calculations", that they are simply able to use their knowledge of physics and mathematics to (very) accurately estimate what will happen if certain conditions are met.

That being said you yourself support my view that quantum dynamics functions on a set of laws that are not random; the randomness is only slightly true. If the universe were lawless at this fundamental level, TWCB could not plausibly predict anything ahead in time. It's not Laplace's Demon though, but I don't think the uncertainty principle precludes a "God" equation. (The equation characteristically acting like our permutations)

LightRey
12-07-2011, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Agentbarto:
Of more fundamental laws and equations. Think about it; randomness is often observed because we cannot conceive of a fundamental truth. Would you ever guess that pea pods are fruits? No most of us call them vegetables, but they're fruits; same goes for pumpkins technically being berries.

My point is this you stated earlier

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
I think it's quite probable, especially considering Jupiter's comment on how things like the Time Nexus have to do with "Calculations", that they are simply able to use their knowledge of physics and mathematics to (very) accurately estimate what will happen if certain conditions are met.

That being said you yourself support my view that quantum dynamics functions on a set of laws that are not random; the randomness is only slightly true. If the universe were lawless at this fundamental level, TWCB could not plausibly predict anything ahead in time. It's not Laplace's Demon though, but I don't think the uncertainty principle precludes a "God" equation. (The equation characteristically acting like our permutations) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem is that quantum mechanics states that "randomness" (for lack of a better term) is something that is part of nature itself. What you say is based on the assumption of nature being deterministic, which is something quantum mechanics refutes. Quantum mechanics holds a fundamental view that uncertainty is part of how nature works. That doesn't mean it is lawless on any level, just that one situation does not necessarily have one single outcome or one single cause.

Agentbarto
12-07-2011, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agentbarto:
Of more fundamental laws and equations. Think about it; randomness is often observed because we cannot conceive of a fundamental truth. Would you ever guess that pea pods are fruits? No most of us call them vegetables, but they're fruits; same goes for pumpkins technically being berries.

My point is this you stated earlier

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
I think it's quite probable, especially considering Jupiter's comment on how things like the Time Nexus have to do with "Calculations", that they are simply able to use their knowledge of physics and mathematics to (very) accurately estimate what will happen if certain conditions are met.

That being said you yourself support my view that quantum dynamics functions on a set of laws that are not random; the randomness is only slightly true. If the universe were lawless at this fundamental level, TWCB could not plausibly predict anything ahead in time. It's not Laplace's Demon though, but I don't think the uncertainty principle precludes a "God" equation. (The equation characteristically acting like our permutations) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem is that quantum mechanics states that "randomness" (for lack of a better term) is something that is part of nature itself. What you say is based on the assumption of nature being deterministic, which is something quantum mechanics refutes. Quantum mechanics holds a fundamental view that uncertainty is part of how nature works. That doesn't mean it is lawless on any level, just that one situation does not necessarily have one single outcome or one single cause. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, it's indeterminate, but I guess I'm not seeing the problem you see with my thought process.

LightRey
12-07-2011, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Agentbarto:
Yeah, it's indeterminate, but I guess I'm not seeing the problem you see with my thought process.
My problem with your thought process is that you seem to be suggesting that there is the possibility of there being indeterminable underlying parameters, which brings up the important point of how something can exist if it's impossible to determine its existence. This is something Quantum Mechanics is based on. It states that there is no such thing, or rather, that there is no such thing, but also there is such a thing. Quantum Mechanics states that all solutions of a system exist (whatever that may mean to you is up to you).

If something cannot be determined, then what is there to determine its existence?

Agentbarto
12-07-2011, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agentbarto:
Yeah, it's indeterminate, but I guess I'm not seeing the problem you see with my thought process.
My problem with your thought process is that you seem to be suggesting that there is the possibility of there being indeterminable underlying parameters, which brings up the important point of how something can exist if it's impossible to determine its existence. This is something Quantum Mechanics is based on. It states that there is no such thing, or rather, that there is no such thing, but also there is such a thing. Quantum Mechanics states that all solutions of a system exist (whatever that may mean to you is up to you).

If something cannot be determined, then what is there to determine its existence? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally, I attribute it to our technology.
As far as our discussion of indeterminacy goes; keep in mind we make make something exhibit indeterminacy by observing it. That's how this principle was discovered right? So maybe it's our technology which poses the problem. I'm not at all trying to challenge Quantum Physics and Multiverse theory but if you look at the basic principles it seems to resemble, at least to me, a permtuation. As far as the quarks go many physicists have said matter breaks down at some point, but if it does break down into energy and forces, how is it that those forces exist in the first place?

Also this "It states that there is no such thing, or rather, that there is no such thing, but also there is such a thing."

Two sides of the same coin, two scenarios from two outcomes from one equation. Simply put different aspects and manifestations of the same underlying principle.

LightRey
12-07-2011, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Agentbarto:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agentbarto:
Yeah, it's indeterminate, but I guess I'm not seeing the problem you see with my thought process.
My problem with your thought process is that you seem to be suggesting that there is the possibility of there being indeterminable underlying parameters, which brings up the important point of how something can exist if it's impossible to determine its existence. This is something Quantum Mechanics is based on. It states that there is no such thing, or rather, that there is no such thing, but also there is such a thing. Quantum Mechanics states that all solutions of a system exist (whatever that may mean to you is up to you).

If something cannot be determined, then what is there to determine its existence? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally, I attribute it to our technology.
As far as our discussion of indeterminacy goes; keep in mind we make make something exhibit indeterminacy by observing it. That's how this principle was discovered right? So maybe it's our technology which poses the problem. I'm not at all trying to challenge Quantum Physics and Multiverse theory but if you look at the basic principles it seems to resemble, at least to me, a permtuation. As far as the quarks go many physicists have said matter breaks down at some point, but if it does break down into energy and forces, how is it that those forces exist in the first place?

Also this "It states that there is no such thing, or rather, that there is no such thing, but also there is such a thing."

Two sides of the same coin, two scenarios from two outcomes from one equation. Simply put different aspects and manifestations of the same underlying principle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That would be the so-called "realistic interpretation" of the uncertainty principle. Sadly for you a few years ago it was proven to be wrong.

The uncertainty principle isn't something that's caused by a limit of our technology. It's a fundamental property of nature that there are some things that we become less certain of the more certain we become of something else.

Agentbarto
12-07-2011, 07:37 PM
That's a fundamental property of science and anything that is alive (academic wise). The Universe doesn't change, we must change to understand it. That being said we have support for the indeterminate nature characterizing our universe; but again it's our technology and imagination that determines how we perceive nature. If we are not willing to think outside the box, no one will ever repeat a contribution similar in its audacity to that of Einstein. Were we to become technologically stagnant, even with our imagination we could not test our hypotheses. So it's possible an underlying truth exists, its simply something we cannot observe. To paraphrase Richard Feynman; "nature is smarter than us" (a figure of speech of course).

OculusRed
12-07-2011, 07:43 PM
What does all this have to do with the sixth sense again?

S-EVANS
12-07-2011, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by OculusRed:
What does all this have to do with the sixth sense again?

im hoping i get a cookie, but this is why i logged back on...

people learn in different ways, and because of that i go on the offensive when people attack posters...

i give you the best example i can !!!

we all learn in different ways, in a forum theres a difference between people who want to learn and those who just get involved. sometimes in real life you sit and talk to someone and think to yourself i cant relate to this person because he/she is talking beyond my level...

forum wise... this means that they are fighting about a principle with respect!!!

both people need to understand why they are either right or wrong and theres only one respectful way to do that... and thats to fight the point they both make

when one person cant prove, explain, fight, stay respectful then its safe to say the looser cant maintain his/her point.

in my case i know theres people on this forum beyond my understanding because i have to use google to understand them, but that doesnt mean im wrong and they right,i just dont understand..

so what you have to do if you dont understand is reasearch keywords and educate yourself until you do...

you only get better by playing a better person!!!

Agentbarto
12-07-2011, 08:50 PM
That truly is a wonderful way to learn. Always compare and contrast ideas. That's what true scholars do.

LightRey
12-08-2011, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by Agentbarto:
That's a fundamental property of science and anything that is alive (academic wise). The Universe doesn't change, we must change to understand it. That being said we have support for the indeterminate nature characterizing our universe; but again it's our technology and imagination that determines how we perceive nature. If we are not willing to think outside the box, no one will ever repeat a contribution similar in its audacity to that of Einstein. Were we to become technologically stagnant, even with our imagination we could not test our hypotheses. So it's possible an underlying truth exists, its simply something we cannot observe. To paraphrase Richard Feynman; "nature is smarter than us" (a figure of speech of course).
I don't think you quite understand. There is no other scientific way. It's not that we cannot think of any other way to measure these things. The problem is that it is by definition impossible to know both the momentum and the position of an object for example.

The problem regarding this lies in the following: momentum is a property of a particle that describes its direction of motion. The first part of the problem is, that it's impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of a particle at the same time. To quote Max Born:


...To measure space coordinates and instants of time, rigid measuring rods and clocks are required. On the other hand, to measure momenta and energies, devices are necessary with movable parts to absorb the impact of the test object and to indicate the size of its momentum. Paying regard to the fact that quantum mechanics is competent for dealing with the interaction of object and apparatus, it is seen that no arrangement is possible that will fulfill both requirements simultaneously...

The second part of the problem is that to measure a particle's position, you inevitably have to change the particles momentum and vice versa.

This results in the uncertainty principle, stating that the product of the standard deviations (measurements of uncertainty) of momentum and position is always greater or equal than the Plank constant h divided by 4pi (or the Reduced Plank constant divided by 2):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/6/d/b/6db69c40c8c74596f81ab37f5bf091de.png

As can be seen from the equation above, if we have the best possible measurements, allowing for a situation of sigma_x*sigma_p = h/(4pi), we get that as one standard deviation approaches 0 (it becomes more certain) the other approaches infinity.


I also think you're trying to hint at there being some absolute truth behind everything. The problem with that however, is once again that such a truth would be indeterminable and therefore once again we come to the question: if it is impossible to determine something, does it even exist?

blazefp
12-08-2011, 07:41 AM
This is completely out of my league O.o

LightRey
12-08-2011, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by blazefp:
This is completely out of my league O.o
xD
Maybe we went a little too far.

Basically what I'm saying is that there are certain properties in nature that are related in such a way that the more precisely you know one, the less precisely you can now the other.

This basically brings up the point that if it is impossible to determine something, then (arguably) that something doesn't really exist.

UrDeviant1
12-08-2011, 08:20 AM
My mind hurts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

YuurHeen
12-08-2011, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by UrDeviant1:
My mind hurts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

this is only the basis of QM. if you truely want to use QM to describe multiple electrons around a nucleus it gets a bit harder and if you want to describe bonds between atoms it gets really hard.

The thing with science is that it describes and measures things that our human minds weren't made to understand. the very small and the very huge. for example: none can ever understands the size of the universe but he sure is able to measure and calcualate it.

blazefp
12-08-2011, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by YuurHeen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by UrDeviant1:
My mind hurts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

this is only the basis of QM. if you truely want to use QM to describe multiple electrons around a nucleus it gets a bit harder and if you want to describe bonds between atoms it gets really hard.

The thing with science is that it describes and measures things that our human minds weren't made to understand. the very small and the very huge. for example: none can ever understands the size of the universe but he sure is able to measure and calcualate it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true. It has already been done actually and it looks random tbh. Like a 3/4D stain or so

LightRey
12-08-2011, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by YuurHeen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by UrDeviant1:
My mind hurts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

this is only the basis of QM. if you truely want to use QM to describe multiple electrons around a nucleus it gets a bit harder and if you want to describe bonds between atoms it gets really hard.

The thing with science is that it describes and measures things that our human minds weren't made to understand. the very small and the very huge. for example: none can ever understands the size of the universe but he sure is able to measure and calcualate it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Basically. We can describe nature to any extent we want. To say that we are incapable of understanding it, I wouldn't be so sure. The question lies more in if there really is anything to understand.

Agentbarto
12-08-2011, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agentbarto:
That's a fundamental property of science and anything that is alive (academic wise). The Universe doesn't change, we must change to understand it. That being said we have support for the indeterminate nature characterizing our universe; but again it's our technology and imagination that determines how we perceive nature. If we are not willing to think outside the box, no one will ever repeat a contribution similar in its audacity to that of Einstein. Were we to become technologically stagnant, even with our imagination we could not test our hypotheses. So it's possible an underlying truth exists, its simply something we cannot observe. To paraphrase Richard Feynman; "nature is smarter than us" (a figure of speech of course).
I don't think you quite understand. There is no other scientific way. It's not that we cannot think of any other way to measure these things. The problem is that it is by definition impossible to know both the momentum and the position of an object for example.

The problem regarding this lies in the following: momentum is a property of a particle that describes its direction of motion. The first part of the problem is, that it's impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of a particle at the same time. To quote Max Born:


...To measure space coordinates and instants of time, rigid measuring rods and clocks are required. On the other hand, to measure momenta and energies, devices are necessary with movable parts to absorb the impact of the test object and to indicate the size of its momentum. Paying regard to the fact that quantum mechanics is competent for dealing with the interaction of object and apparatus, it is seen that no arrangement is possible that will fulfill both requirements simultaneously...

The second part of the problem is that to measure a particle's position, you inevitably have to change the particles momentum and vice versa.

This results in the uncertainty principle, stating that the product of the standard deviations (measurements of uncertainty) of momentum and position is always greater or equal than the Plank constant h divided by 4pi (or the Reduced Plank constant divided by 2):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/6/d/b/6db69c40c8c74596f81ab37f5bf091de.png

As can be seen from the equation above, if we have the best possible measurements, allowing for a situation of sigma_x*sigma_p = h/(4pi), we get that as one standard deviation approaches 0 (it becomes more certain) the other approaches infinity.


I also think you're trying to hint at there being some absolute truth behind everything. The problem with that however, is once again that such a truth would be indeterminable and therefore once again we come to the question: if it is impossible to determine something, does it even exist? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Elaborate a bit on the implications of the uncertainty principle on my view of tech. please.

As far as the unseen truth I propose; I say its there even if we can't see it. Before you dismiss it as entirely spiritual and unscientific, consider the Higgs Boson. String theorists are currently unable to test for some of the phenomena they've observed in mathematics, hence most of their theories are based primarily on mathematic calculations and proofs. Only problem you might ask; again might be considered unscientific. Well, you can't just invent something that doesn't exist to prove a proof; String Theory can only work with all of its pieces put together, miss one and there is a gaping hole in the middle. But again, adding the Higgs Boson (or something that does the job of the Boson) to the equations allows a successful solving of the equation. Keep in mind math symbols are merely representations of physical phenomena; so dismissing it as bad math is not necessarily going to work. String Theorists are criticized by other theoretical physicists such as Lawrence Krausse for the very reason you suggest. This I believe is where we must agree to disagree (for the time being).

LightRey
12-08-2011, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Agentbarto:
Elaborate a bit on the implications of the uncertainty principle on my view of tech. please.

As far as the unseen truth I propose; I say its there even if we can't see it. Before you dismiss it as entirely spiritual and unscientific, consider the Higgs Boson. String theorists are currently unable to test for some of the phenomena they've observed in mathematics, hence most of their theories are based primarily on mathematic calculations and proofs. Only problem you might ask; again might be considered unscientific. Well, you can't just invent something that doesn't exist to prove a proof; String Theory can only work with all of its pieces put together, miss one and there is a gaping hole in the middle. But again, adding the Higgs Boson (or something that does the job of the Boson) to the equations allows a successful solving of the equation. Keep in mind math symbols are merely representations of physical phenomena; so dismissing it as bad math is not necessarily going to work. String Theorists are criticized by other theoretical physicists such as Lawrence Krausse for the very reason you suggest. This I believe is where we must agree to disagree (for the time being).
The problem with you view of tech is that it's completely unrelated to the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle doesn't state that our technology is not good enough to determine precisely (enough) what these properties are, it states that the laws of physics themselves prevent us from being able to measure both properties to such a relation that the product of their standard errors is smaller than a certain constant (said constant being h/(4pi)).

The thing is that if there is something underlying, it'll never be possible to know. That's the problem with it all. You're suggesting the existence of an absolute truth that cannot be determined. I'm not saying it's incorrect, but I am saying that it's inability to be known brings up a philosophical conundrum: if something is by definition unknown to exist, can it even exist?

Agentbarto
12-08-2011, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agentbarto:
Elaborate a bit on the implications of the uncertainty principle on my view of tech. please.

As far as the unseen truth I propose; I say its there even if we can't see it. Before you dismiss it as entirely spiritual and unscientific, consider the Higgs Boson. String theorists are currently unable to test for some of the phenomena they've observed in mathematics, hence most of their theories are based primarily on mathematic calculations and proofs. Only problem you might ask; again might be considered unscientific. Well, you can't just invent something that doesn't exist to prove a proof; String Theory can only work with all of its pieces put together, miss one and there is a gaping hole in the middle. But again, adding the Higgs Boson (or something that does the job of the Boson) to the equations allows a successful solving of the equation. Keep in mind math symbols are merely representations of physical phenomena; so dismissing it as bad math is not necessarily going to work. String Theorists are criticized by other theoretical physicists such as Lawrence Krausse for the very reason you suggest. This I believe is where we must agree to disagree (for the time being).
The problem with you view of tech is that it's completely unrelated to the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle doesn't state that our technology is not good enough to determine precisely (enough) what these properties are, it states that the laws of physics themselves prevent us from being able to measure both properties to such a relation that the product of their standard errors is smaller than a certain constant (said constant being h/(4pi)).

The thing is that if there is something underlying, it'll never be possible to know. That's the problem with it all. You're suggesting the existence of an absolute truth that cannot be determined. I'm not saying it's incorrect, but I am saying that it's inability to be known brings up a philosophical conundrum: if something is by definition unknown to exist, can it even exist? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, something can exist because you're assuming the universe acts in accordance with our ability to observe it. Chances are science will never reach an end because there will always be more to discover due to the limits of human conceptualization at any given moment.

This is again why I doubt our ability to accurately analyze the indeterminable. (Only slightly, because I do understand what you mean by uncertainty.)

LightRey
12-08-2011, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Agentbarto:
Yes, something can exist because you're assuming the universe acts in accordance with our ability to observe it. Chances are science will never reach an end because there will always be more to discover due to the limits of human conceptualization at any given moment.

This is again why I doubt our ability to accurately analyze the indeterminable. (Only slightly, because I do understand what you mean by uncertainty.)
No, not yes. If you can't prove the existence of something how can you say it exists?

xCr0wnedNorris
12-08-2011, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agentbarto:
That's a fundamental property of science and anything that is alive (academic wise). The Universe doesn't change, we must change to understand it. That being said we have support for the indeterminate nature characterizing our universe; but again it's our technology and imagination that determines how we perceive nature. If we are not willing to think outside the box, no one will ever repeat a contribution similar in its audacity to that of Einstein. Were we to become technologically stagnant, even with our imagination we could not test our hypotheses. So it's possible an underlying truth exists, its simply something we cannot observe. To paraphrase Richard Feynman; "nature is smarter than us" (a figure of speech of course).
I don't think you quite understand. There is no other scientific way. It's not that we cannot think of any other way to measure these things. The problem is that it is by definition impossible to know both the momentum and the position of an object for example.

The problem regarding this lies in the following: momentum is a property of a particle that describes its direction of motion. The first part of the problem is, that it's impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of a particle at the same time. To quote Max Born:


...To measure space coordinates and instants of time, rigid measuring rods and clocks are required. On the other hand, to measure momenta and energies, devices are necessary with movable parts to absorb the impact of the test object and to indicate the size of its momentum. Paying regard to the fact that quantum mechanics is competent for dealing with the interaction of object and apparatus, it is seen that no arrangement is possible that will fulfill both requirements simultaneously...

The second part of the problem is that to measure a particle's position, you inevitably have to change the particles momentum and vice versa.

This results in the uncertainty principle, stating that the product of the standard deviations (measurements of uncertainty) of momentum and position is always greater or equal than the Plank constant h divided by 4pi (or the Reduced Plank constant divided by 2):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/6/d/b/6db69c40c8c74596f81ab37f5bf091de.png

As can be seen from the equation above, if we have the best possible measurements, allowing for a situation of sigma_x*sigma_p = h/(4pi), we get that as one standard deviation approaches 0 (it becomes more certain) the other approaches infinity.


I also think you're trying to hint at there being some absolute truth behind everything. The problem with that however, is once again that such a truth would be indeterminable and therefore once again we come to the question: if it is impossible to determine something, does it even exist? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
...

Can you help me with my Algebra homework? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

LightRey
12-08-2011, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by xCr0wnedNorris:
...

Can you help me with my Algebra homework? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
xD
Well if you really need it.

Agentbarto
12-08-2011, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agentbarto:
Yes, something can exist because you're assuming the universe acts in accordance with our ability to observe it. Chances are science will never reach an end because there will always be more to discover due to the limits of human conceptualization at any given moment.

This is again why I doubt our ability to accurately analyze the indeterminable. (Only slightly, because I do understand what you mean by uncertainty.)
No, not yes. If you can't prove the existence of something how can you say it exists? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again you're assuming we have the most perfect machines to conceptualize the universe (our brains)

It's like asking you to create an alien weapon; likely you will base all aspects of it on archetypal designs that are entirely human. It may look different but it will be based on things which we already figured out and therefore not entirely alien. Same goes for mathematical constructs. Everyone criticized the Green Lantern film's protagonist for only being able to use the ring to construct objects we are all familiar with. Same problem. Lorne Balfe was recently interviewed about his musical contribution to the Spyro series. He was asked if he'd listened to previous soundtracks; something to which he replied "No", mainly because he didn't want to be subconsciously influenced by aspects of the original style. Problem is, most human brains can only conceive of a finite number of components; the beauty lies not in the constituents of the whole, but rather the combination of those constituents. This slightly relates to why people see false colors or the possession of synesthesia; their brains are wired differently so that they see colors most other people cannot.


Edit: The only way to solve such a limitation is to think outside the box and attempt to bridge two limited methodologies through a proof.

LightRey
12-08-2011, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Agentbarto:
Again you're assuming we have the most perfect machines to conceptualize the universe (our brains)

It's like asking you to create an alien weapon; likely you will base all aspects of it on archetypal designs that are entirely human. It may look different but it will be based on things which we already figured out and therefore not entirely alien. Same goes for mathematical constructs. Everyone criticized the Green Lantern film's protagonist for only being able to use the ring to construct objects we are all familiar with. Same problem. Lorne Balfe was recently interviewed about his musical contribution to the Spyro series. He was asked if he'd listened to previous soundtracks; something to which he replied "No", mainly because he didn't want to be subconsciously influenced by aspects of the original style. Problem is, most human brains can only conceive of a finite number of components; the beauty lies not in the constituents of the whole, but rather the combination of those constituents. This slightly relates to why people see false colors or the possession of synesthesia; their brains are wired differently so that they see colors most other people cannot.


Edit: The only way to solve such a limitation is to think outside the box and attempt to bridge two limited methodologies through a proof.
No, I'm not. You're not getting the point. This has nothing to do with methodologies. It's not a limitation of machinery. It's not a problem of having a limited mind. We are talking about properties of nature here. It doesn't even have to do with understanding. It's a problem of how these things are defined. Logic itself dictates that the uncertainty principle is true.

Using logical deduction (which I'm not going to post here since I really can't do this myself at this point), one can conclude that it's impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of a particle with the same measurement regardless of how one performs said measurement, based purely on the definitions of said properties. One can also conclude that it is impossible to measure either property after the other, without changing the first for doing so. Using these conclusions, one can deduce that it is impossible to know both properties to infinite precision, because the more certain you are of the first, the less certain you can be of the second and vice versa.

(this was a gross simplification btw)

There is no "loophole", no "out of the box thinking". This is simply a logical deduction based solely on the definitions of these properties, which in turn was reinforced by experiments.

Unless a huge logical mistake has gone unnoticed for a century, this really is a proven property of nature.

S-EVANS
12-08-2011, 06:04 PM
How do you explain life after death experiences theres no scientic proof that theres anything beyond life, yet the majority of people say it does exsist but since no one knows how can so many be so sure of it ?

and yet here we all are in a forum debating the existence of a sixth sense, despite all having views on it... science says it doesnt exsist because theres no proof, yet again theres plenty of people who claim it does.


if it is impossible to determine something, does it even exist?

existence and reality are different, since some people object to the existence of something because they require proof the reality is it might exsist they just cant prove it doesnt, same point different angle.

heres a question...?

Whats the meaning of life, why are we here?

No matter how much science you apply, you cant answer this question. so if theres no available proof how come nearly everyone i know thinks they has to be a reason to life.

im not sure you can win the fight either way!!!

Agentbarto
12-08-2011, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agentbarto:
Again you're assuming we have the most perfect machines to conceptualize the universe (our brains)

It's like asking you to create an alien weapon; likely you will base all aspects of it on archetypal designs that are entirely human. It may look different but it will be based on things which we already figured out and therefore not entirely alien. Same goes for mathematical constructs. Everyone criticized the Green Lantern film's protagonist for only being able to use the ring to construct objects we are all familiar with. Same problem. Lorne Balfe was recently interviewed about his musical contribution to the Spyro series. He was asked if he'd listened to previous soundtracks; something to which he replied "No", mainly because he didn't want to be subconsciously influenced by aspects of the original style. Problem is, most human brains can only conceive of a finite number of components; the beauty lies not in the constituents of the whole, but rather the combination of those constituents. This slightly relates to why people see false colors or the possession of synesthesia; their brains are wired differently so that they see colors most other people cannot.


Edit: The only way to solve such a limitation is to think outside the box and attempt to bridge two limited methodologies through a proof.
No, I'm not. You're not getting the point. This has nothing to do with methodologies. It's not a limitation of machinery. It's not a problem of having a limited mind. We are talking about properties of nature here. It doesn't even have to do with understanding. It's a problem of how these things are defined. Logic itself dictates that the uncertainty principle is true.

Using logical deduction (which I'm not going to post here since I really can't do this myself at this point), one can conclude that it's impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of a particle with the same measurement regardless of how one performs said measurement, based purely on the definitions of said properties. One can also conclude that it is impossible to measure either property after the other, without changing the first for doing so. Using these conclusions, one can deduce that it is impossible to know both properties to infinite precision, because the more certain you are of the first, the less certain you can be of the second and vice versa.

(this was a gross simplification btw)

There is no "loophole", no "out of the box thinking". This is simply a logical deduction based solely on the definitions of these properties, which in turn was reinforced by experiments.

Unless a huge logical mistake has gone unnoticed for a century, this really is a proven property of nature. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm simply willing to question the validity of our logic when it comes to the universe. There's a reason we don't understand black holes; that is that our concepts our limited by our ability or willingness to perceive the universe in other ways.

Are you that opposed to the possibility we may be making the same mistake in our logistics as scientists for centuries? Physics has always encountered such a problem and how was it solved? Innovation, and I'm sorry but I'm just not willing to accept that our collective logic is infallible. Put simply I'm saying it's been the case in the past that we've thought we knew what we were observing, claiming it was logical, and we didn't.

I'm not going to pretend to debate with you on principles of physics which I by no means fully understand, nor will I ever assume I do, I'm a biologist, so excuse me a bit. That being said I'm not shying away from learning physics I'm simply introducing a caveat.

S-EVANS
12-08-2011, 06:28 PM
all i know is i dont even understand why im here, much less the universe around me...

I prefer spiritual approach because science cant answer my questions. that said i would like a science answer to my 6th sense, but science doesnt have one...

so how they going to link it science wise in the game i have zero idea!!!

LightRey
12-08-2011, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Agentbarto:
I'm simply willing to question the validity of our logic when it comes to the universe. There's a reason we don't understand black holes; that is that our concepts our limited by our ability or willingness to perceive the universe in other ways.

Are you that opposed to the possibility we may be making the same mistake in our logistics as scientists for centuries? Physics has always encountered such a problem and how was it solved? Innovation, and I'm sorry but I'm just not willing to accept that our collective logic is infallible. Put simply I'm saying it's been the case in the past that we've thought we knew what we were observing, claiming it was logical, and we didn't.

I'm not going to pretend to debate with you on principles of physics which I by no means fully understand, nor will I ever assume I do, I'm a biologist, so excuse me a bit. That being said I'm not shying away from learning physics I'm simply introducing a caveat.
We don't understand black holes, because they're singularities. That basically means that the laws of physics get a "divide by zero error". That would either mean that our models for them are wrong, or that simply means that that's just it, that black holes are just singularities and that's that. Either way we don't even have solid proof that they exist, since we've never actually "seen" one, so saying we don't understand something we've happened to come across in our current models of the universe means fairly little.

Are you trying to argue logic? Logic isn't some theory or system. You can't say there's an "error" in it, or that there's a mistake in it. The only way to determine such things is through logic to begin with. If logic were to defy logic then we'd have a logically impossible conundrum, which doesn't really mean anything, since logic would be wrong, but it basically ends everything. I wouldn't even be able to argue anything since logic wouldn't work, which would however be untrue, because logic doesn't work, etc.

Those "claims" of things being logical were never proven concepts. There is absolutely no proven logical system in existence that has been wrong in itself. As I said it's logically impossible for a logical deduction to be incorrect. That may sound like circular reasoning, but I've shown you what the alternative leads to.

The point is that this has nothing to do with innovation or a lack of understanding. Hell, there's probably nobody on the planet that truly understands quantum physics, nor has there ever been anyone. It's just the way it turns out to be.

It's possible that someone made a mistake making this logical deduction and it has gone unnoticed all this time, but I'd say that's unlikely.

Anyways, assuming that there have been no mistakes, this is a property of nature.

Agentbarto
12-08-2011, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agentbarto:
I'm simply willing to question the validity of our logic when it comes to the universe. There's a reason we don't understand black holes; that is that our concepts our limited by our ability or willingness to perceive the universe in other ways.

Are you that opposed to the possibility we may be making the same mistake in our logistics as scientists for centuries? Physics has always encountered such a problem and how was it solved? Innovation, and I'm sorry but I'm just not willing to accept that our collective logic is infallible. Put simply I'm saying it's been the case in the past that we've thought we knew what we were observing, claiming it was logical, and we didn't.

I'm not going to pretend to debate with you on principles of physics which I by no means fully understand, nor will I ever assume I do, I'm a biologist, so excuse me a bit. That being said I'm not shying away from learning physics I'm simply introducing a caveat.
We don't understand black holes, because they're singularities. That basically means that the laws of physics get a "divide by zero error". That would either mean that our models for them are wrong, or that simply means that that's just it, that black holes are just singularities and that's that. Either way we don't even have solid proof that they exist, since we've never actually "seen" one, so saying we don't understand something we've happened to come across in our current models of the universe means fairly little.

Are you trying to argue logic? Logic isn't some theory or system. You can't say there's an "error" in it, or that there's a mistake in it. The only way to determine such things is through logic to begin with. If logic were to defy logic then we'd have a logically impossible conundrum, which doesn't really mean anything, since logic would be wrong, but it basically ends everything. I wouldn't even be able to argue anything since logic wouldn't work, which would however be untrue, because logic doesn't work, etc.

Those "claims" of things being logical were never proven concepts. There is absolutely no proven logical system in existence that has been wrong in itself. As I said it's logically impossible for a logical deduction to be incorrect. That may sound like circular reasoning, but I've shown you what the alternative leads to.

The point is that this has nothing to do with innovation or a lack of understanding. Hell, there's probably nobody on the planet that truly understands quantum physics, nor has there ever been anyone. It's just the way it turns out to be.

It's possible that someone made a mistake making this logical deduction and it has gone unnoticed all this time, but I'd say that's unlikely.

Anyways, assuming that there have been no mistakes, this is a property of nature. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the risk of being criticized for a "bad" definition of logic and hence being stupid. What if logic is merely a general consensus on a relationship of cause-effect, not what you seem to think; that logic is a truth. Were it a truth you would have contradictions as you stated. Logic is merely an agreement on what is assumed to be a general truth. Let's say you start at cause-effect, but to someone else what you consider to be the effect is actually the cause and the cause is the effect. Who is correct?

I agree though, often times what I labeled disproven has simply been an aspect of a greater truth.

LightRey
12-08-2011, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Agentbarto:
At the risk of being criticized for a "bad" definition of logic and hence being stupid. What if logic is merely a general consensus on a relationship of cause-effect, not what you seem to think; that logic is a truth. Were it a truth you would have contradictions as you stated. Logic is merely an agreement on what is assumed to be a general truth. Let's say you start at cause-effect, but to someone else what you consider to be the effect is actually the cause and the cause is the effect. Who is correct?

I agree though, often times what I labeled disproven has simply been an aspect of a greater truth.
Thing is that is not the case. Philosophers since before the ancient Greeks have done everything to properly "define" what logic is and "how it works", for lack of better terms. It's not so much an agreement on what is assumed to be truth, as it is a definition of what is considered to be true. Truth is defined by logic.

Agentbarto
12-08-2011, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agentbarto:
At the risk of being criticized for a "bad" definition of logic and hence being stupid. What if logic is merely a general consensus on a relationship of cause-effect, not what you seem to think; that logic is a truth. Were it a truth you would have contradictions as you stated. Logic is merely an agreement on what is assumed to be a general truth. Let's say you start at cause-effect, but to someone else what you consider to be the effect is actually the cause and the cause is the effect. Who is correct?

I agree though, often times what I labeled disproven has simply been an aspect of a greater truth.
Thing is that is not the case. Philosophers since before the ancient Greeks have done everything to properly "define" what logic is and "how it works", for lack of better terms. It's not so much an agreement on what is assumed to be truth, as it is a definition of what is considered to be true. Truth is defined by logic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Kant claimed that "truth" is merely an agreement on the most likely cause-effect relationship. What if a definition of good logic is one defined by correctly tracing the type of logic along which the original discovery of truth was formed. Logic itself is then a method of adhering to previous systems of thought which yield similar truths. (That's not to say that it is not good logic, but it's not perfect logic).

Edit: I guess what I'm trying to get at is that when we observe say something like a leaf floating in the wind; we're observing a manifestation of the general laws of physics; only surface level observations, not necessarily the laws themselves. I guess I am extending that to more fundamental levels.

LightRey
12-08-2011, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Agentbarto:
Kant claimed that "truth" is merely an agreement on the most likely cause-effect relationship. What if a definition of good logic is one defined by correctly tracing the type of logic along which the original discovery of truth was formed. Logic itself is then a method of adhering to previous systems of thought which yield similar truths. (That's not to say that it is not good logic, but it's not perfect logic).
Let's not make random references to philosophers now. Not only are such statements often meaningless and wrong when taken out of context, they have also usually been refuted quite shortly after they were said by another or the same philosopher.

The thing is that in physics (and any other science for that matter), regardless of all the philosophical stuff people have thought of over the years, a requirement for something to be true is that it is logical. If something is illogical, it cannot be true in physics and for something to be true in physics, it has to be logical. To doubt logic is to doubt science and to doubt science is to doubt its axioms, which means you doubt the nature of existence itself, which is fine, but it won't get you any closer to any of the answers we're trying to find here.

Agentbarto
12-08-2011, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agentbarto:
Kant claimed that "truth" is merely an agreement on the most likely cause-effect relationship. What if a definition of good logic is one defined by correctly tracing the type of logic along which the original discovery of truth was formed. Logic itself is then a method of adhering to previous systems of thought which yield similar truths. (That's not to say that it is not good logic, but it's not perfect logic).
Let's not make random references to philosophers now. Not only are such statements often meaningless and wrong when taken out of context, they have also usually been refuted quite shortly after they were said by another or the same philosopher.

The thing is that in physics (and any other science for that matter), regardless of all the philosophical stuff people have thought of over the years, a requirement for something to be true is that it is logical. If something is illogical, it cannot be true in physics and for something to be true in physics, it has to be logical. To doubt logic is to doubt science and to doubt science is to doubt its axioms, which means you doubt the nature of existence itself, which is fine, but it won't get you any closer to any of the answers we're trying to find here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If science is based on logic then it is based on principles of philosophy by proxy. These principles are not at all written in stone and are subject to change based on the interactions of ideas through debate. And I'm not quoting a random philosopher, Immanuel Kant was a great influence to Einstein, Piaget, Max Weber (sociologist) others. You seem to take the view of Ayn Rand (one of my favorite authors) in this respect when saying that we can know reality as it truly is. I'm saying we can get close but we can never truly know if our conceptualization is concrete due to the innate translative loss of information when observing a natural phenomenon and analyzing its different aspects in ways we can understand it. Also keep in mind that axioms can be far from logical; they're simply things upon which a society agrees to label a truth.

Our brains allow us to perceive the world around us. Lose a sense and we lose a layer of understanding; now the brain sometimes compensates, but it can never gain a good grasp on the aspect of reality that is imperceptible. Lucidity is available to all, but in different doses.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that this conversation has come full circle back to a discussion of knowledge and the senses.

LightRey
12-09-2011, 04:32 AM
Logic isn't subject to change and I never said you quoted a random philosopher. I know very well who Immanuel Kant is. I said you made a random reference. If there's one thing that happens all the time amongst philosophers, it's that one will say "this can't happen" and not even a year later someone (maybe even the same person) gives an example in which it happens.

Axioms are the fundamental assumptions a system is based on. Of course they're not logical, they're assumptions. However, doubting the axioms of science basically means doubting that the world we observe is reality, which is once again fine, but it makes this whole conversation rather meaningless.

You're trying to argue that logic is limited by our ability to understand, which is untrue. Logic is something that can go, and has gone, way beyond our ability to understand, but it's beside the point. Just because we can't understand it doesn't mean we can't describe it. Science isn't just about making models for nature, it's about observing the workings of nature. Logic dictates that the uncertainty principle is true, you can't argue with that.

Logic is unchanging. It's not something that can be wrong at some point. It merely states what can be true and what can't be. It defines truth.

What's important to see when looking at your posts is that you've been trying to use logic to say that logic might be incorrect, which is a contradiction in itself. if logic is incorrect, then a logical deduction to deduce that it is incorrect is invalid, because logic is incorrect, but that would mean logic isn't incorrect, but that would mean logic is incorrect, etc.

YuurHeen
12-09-2011, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by S-EVANS:
How do you explain life after death experiences theres no scientic proof that theres anything beyond life, yet the majority of people say it does exsist but since no one knows how can so many be so sure of it ?

it is brainchemicals that produce hallucinations.
just like a lot of people claim they been abducted by aliens after they slepted



and yet here we all are in a forum debating the existence of a sixth sense, despite all having views on it... science says it doesnt exsist because theres no proof, yet again theres plenty of people who claim it does.

yes people who make money from it.


if it is impossible to determine something, does it even exist?

existence and reality are different, since some people object to the existence of something because they require proof the reality is it might exsist they just cant prove it doesnt, same point different angle.

the default posision in such a case is to disbelieve it. otherwise you can believe in fairy's and bigfoot or that we live in a matrix. while it maybe be true it does nothing to the world you live in until it does in which case you can prove it exists.



heres a question...?

Whats the meaning of life, why are we here?

No matter how much science you apply, you cant answer this question. so if theres no available proof how come nearly everyone i know thinks they has to be a reason to life.

im not sure you can win the fight either way!!!

It is not a scientific question therefore science can't answer it. that is true. But it is a wrong question anyway, since it implies a reason for existence while there probably aint one.

Agentbarto
12-09-2011, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
Logic isn't subject to change and I never said you quoted a random philosopher. I know very well who Immanuel Kant is. I said you made a random reference. If there's one thing that happens all the time amongst philosophers, it's that one will say "this can't happen" and not even a year later someone (maybe even the same person) gives an example in which it happens.

Axioms are the fundamental assumptions a system is based on. Of course they're not logical, they're assumptions. However, doubting the axioms of science basically means doubting that the world we observe is reality, which is once again fine, but it makes this whole conversation rather meaningless.

You're trying to argue that logic is limited by our ability to understand, which is untrue. Logic is something that can go, and has gone, way beyond our ability to understand, but it's beside the point. Just because we can't understand it doesn't mean we can't describe it. Science isn't just about making models for nature, it's about observing the workings of nature. Logic dictates that the uncertainty principle is true, you can't argue with that.

Logic is unchanging. It's not something that can be wrong at some point. It merely states what can be true and what can't be. It defines truth.

What's important to see when looking at your posts is that you've been trying to use logic to say that logic might be incorrect, which is a contradiction in itself. if logic is incorrect, then a logical deduction to deduce that it is incorrect is invalid, because logic is incorrect, but that would mean logic isn't incorrect, but that would mean logic is incorrect, etc.

I'm simply saying that if math is logical, it is only logical because our brains can form abstract relationships between cause-effect to a degree the brains of other animals cannot reach. Therefore if brains are arranged in different ways you get slight aberrations in "logic" though we all tend to come to similar conclusions, thereby creating the illusion of the existence of an absolute; 2+2=4 (excuse the word illusion, I couldn't come up with a better word). This is why there are multiple takes on a Theory of Everything; again not saying one will eventually prove the others totally wrong, I realize that what is likely to occur is that different theories actually analyze different aspects of a greater truth.

I think at this point though, we're simply disagreeing on discussions of fundamentals, and I don't know if we can reach an agreement.

LightRey
12-09-2011, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Agentbarto:
I'm simply saying that if math is logical, it is only logical because our brains can form abstract relationships between cause-effect to a degree the brains of other animals cannot reach. Therefore if brains are arranged in different ways you get slight aberrations in "logic" though we all tend to come to similar conclusions, thereby creating the illusion of the existence of an absolute; 2+2=4 (excuse the word illusion, I couldn't come up with a better word). This is why there are multiple takes on a Theory of Everything; again not saying one will eventually prove the others totally wrong, I realize that what is likely to occur is that different theories actually analyze different aspects of a greater truth.

I think at this point though, we're simply disagreeing on discussions of fundamentals, and I don't know if we can reach an agreement.
With logic we don't tend to come to similar conclusions, we come to identical conclusions. Logic isn't dependent on our ability to for abstract relations with cause and effect, we're just able to recognize logic through it.

There are multiple takes on a Theory of Everything, because with the information that's currently available to us there are multiple directions to go in. I also would like to remind you that though there are several different takes on the Theory of Everthing, none have actually as of yet accomplished the goal of explaining everything, which isn't surprising considering how little we know.

If a theory is lacking (such as Newtonian Mechanics), it means that there it doesn't describe nature accurately. That doesn't mean that the theory is illogical (though it could be, but that'd be beside the point since it would've been illogical from the very beginning), but that it simply doesn't describe nature, but another, theoretical universe.

I don't really see your point here. What are you trying to say? That logic may be wrong or that it can change over time? Both are incorrect statements, unless you want to question the existence of the universe itself.

Once again I'm not trying to say you're wrong per se, but you seem to be trying to bring up a point in a context where it does not fit.

Agentbarto
12-09-2011, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agentbarto:
I'm simply saying that if math is logical, it is only logical because our brains can form abstract relationships between cause-effect to a degree the brains of other animals cannot reach. Therefore if brains are arranged in different ways you get slight aberrations in "logic" though we all tend to come to similar conclusions, thereby creating the illusion of the existence of an absolute; 2+2=4 (excuse the word illusion, I couldn't come up with a better word). This is why there are multiple takes on a Theory of Everything; again not saying one will eventually prove the others totally wrong, I realize that what is likely to occur is that different theories actually analyze different aspects of a greater truth.

I think at this point though, we're simply disagreeing on discussions of fundamentals, and I don't know if we can reach an agreement.
With logic we don't tend to come to similar conclusions, we come to identical conclusions. Logic isn't dependent on our ability to for abstract relations with cause and effect, we're just able to recognize logic through it.

There are multiple takes on a Theory of Everything, because with the information that's currently available to us there are multiple directions to go in. I also would like to remind you that though there are several different takes on the Theory of Everthing, none have actually as of yet accomplished the goal of explaining everything, which isn't surprising considering how little we know.

If a theory is lacking (such as Newtonian Mechanics), it means that there it doesn't describe nature accurately. That doesn't mean that the theory is illogical (though it could be, but that'd be beside the point since it would've been illogical from the very beginning), but that it simply doesn't describe nature, but another, theoretical universe.

I don't really see your point here. What are you trying to say? That logic may be wrong or that it can change over time? Both are incorrect statements, unless you want to question the existence of the universe itself.

Once again I'm not trying to say you're wrong per se, but you seem to be trying to bring up a point in a context where it does not fit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I mean by Theories of Everything being correct about different aspects is that if you compare what we have now; String Theory, Quantum Loop Gravity, etc., to what we might synthesize when we have more information, it is likely that the aspects of phenomena explained in this hypothetical Grand Unified Theory are fully formed ideas in the theories we currently have. Remember Newtonian physics? Once we got Einstein we thought Newton was completely wrong, well at least some of what Newton came up with was correct on a different level. Same with Lamarck and Darwin (Sorta).

When you say that certain theories fail to fully describe a phenomenon; that's what I've been trying to get at! You said black holes might simply be singularities, what is more likely is that we do not fully understand the laws by which they're governed.

You've said yourself that there is such a thing as bad logic, so how can I be wrong in questioning the validity of good logic, if you've said that bad logic exists?

Here's a better question I suppose, what is your definition of bad logic? And what makes your logic sound when comparing it to what is considered bad?

I don't see it as you seem to think I do. I'm merely positing that logic is a pathway through which we determine truth. If absolute truth seems to be nonexistent, then its simply because we have not precisely and accurately defined the concept of truth. If truth is an abstract result of a cause-effect relationship, then we have conducted bad logic, even if it gives us some measure of truth; but that doesn't make it meaningless and fruitless, it's simply a step in the right direction. I guess I don't see why you believe logic is absolute in all respects.

Edit: I guess I see logic as having different levels that reveal a deeper truth about the structure of the universe. And I don't necessarily believe we're anywhere near the final level of observations. For example it is logical to conclude that 3^(1/2) is the same as the square root of 3; though most may only recognize it the traditional radicand form.

LightRey
12-09-2011, 05:30 PM
No, really, they're identical. It's logically impossible to come to 2 different conclusions with logical deduction.

You are completely wrong in that second paragraph. Just look at Quantum Mechanics and Einsteins Theory of Relativity. They're fundamentally radically different from Newtonian mechanics. The only real things they have in common with it is that if you would use the model to describe nature as seen on earth, you'd get about the same answers from each of those theories, which makes sense considering they're all based on experiments within that setting. However, the fundamental principles behind Relativity and Quantum Mechanics radically differ from those of Newtonian Mechanics.

If (or rather when) Relativity and Quantum Mechanics will turn out to be wrong, it will be simply because nature works differently.

When theories fail to describe a phenomenon, it's because they're simply models. It has nothing to do with logic. Logic dictates that there are an infinite amount of possible logical systems that one can think of that do not describe nature and every theory that has been proven false is such a logical system.

Black holes being singularities means nothing more than that. It's a division by zero. Nobody's really sure what that means, or if it could even mean anything other than that, but that's it. Assuming they are a singularity, we most certainly do understand the laws by which they are governed, we just have no clue what it "means" to be inside a black hole, but that has to do with our imagination, not the inability of our models, or logic to describe them.

"Bad logic" would be something that isn't logical. It's technically a contradiction, since logic can't be good or bad and you can't call something logic that isn't logic. Logic is just logic. Something is either logical or it isn't.

I would disagree on your final point. Logic doesn't dictate there being an "absolute truth" and there not being an absolute truth is a possibility regardless of how you define truth.

You're trying to argue that logic can be incorrect, which is by definition impossible since something being correct is defined to be logical. The point you're missing is that terms like "truth" and "correct" are based on logic itself.

And again, logic is not a changing concept. Truth isn't an abstract result of a cause-effect relationship, truth is defined by the cause-effect relationship.

When science fails to allow us to "imagine" a certain phenomenon, it's not because the model fails to describe the phenomenon accurately, it's because our minds don't have the capacity to "imagine" it. That has nothing to do with the models. We can use our models to describe nature perfectly.

The problem lies not in logic or understanding, but in our ability to simulate certain things within our minds. It's like asking a person that was born blind to imagine color. The concept doesn't exist in their minds and therefore they can't. The same goes for the wave properties of particles in Quantum Physics. It's there, we can make calculations with them to predict and describe phenomena in nature, but we can't imagine it.

Agentbarto
12-09-2011, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
No, really, they're identical. It's logically impossible to come to 2 different conclusions with logical deduction.

You are completely wrong in that second paragraph. Just look at Quantum Mechanics and Einsteins Theory of Relativity. They're fundamentally radically different from Newtonian mechanics. The only real things they have in common with it is that if you would use the model to describe nature as seen on earth, you'd get about the same answers from each of those theories, which makes sense considering they're all based on experiments within that setting. However, the fundamental principles behind Relativity and Quantum Mechanics radically differ from those of Newtonian Mechanics.

If (or rather when) Relativity and Quantum Mechanics will turn out to be wrong, it will be simply because nature works differently.

When theories fail to describe a phenomenon, it's because they're simply models. It has nothing to do with logic. Logic dictates that there are an infinite amount of possible logical systems that one can think of that do not describe nature and every theory that has been proven false is such a logical system.

Black holes being singularities means nothing more than that. It's a division by zero. Nobody's really sure what that means, or if it could even mean anything other than that, but that's it. Assuming they are a singularity, we most certainly do understand the laws by which they are governed, we just have no clue what it "means" to be inside a black hole, but that has to do with our imagination, not the inability of our models, or logic to describe them.

"Bad logic" would be something that isn't logical. It's technically a contradiction, since logic can't be good or bad and you can't call something logic that isn't logic. Logic is just logic. Something is either logical or it isn't.

I would disagree on your final point. Logic doesn't dictate there being an "absolute truth" and there not being an absolute truth is a possibility regardless of how you define truth.

You're trying to argue that logic can be incorrect, which is by definition impossible since something being correct is defined to be logical. The point you're missing is that terms like "truth" and "correct" are based on logic itself.

And again, logic is not a changing concept. Truth isn't an abstract result of a cause-effect relationship, truth is defined by the cause-effect relationship.

When science fails to allow us to "imagine" a certain phenomenon, it's not because the model fails to describe the phenomenon accurately, it's because our minds don't have the capacity to "imagine" it. That has nothing to do with the models. We can use our models to describe nature perfectly.

The problem lies not in logic or understanding, but in our ability to simulate certain things within our minds. It's like asking a person that was born blind to imagine color. The concept doesn't exist in their minds and therefore they can't. The same goes for the wave properties of particles in Quantum Physics. It's there, we can make calculations with them to predict and describe phenomena in nature, but we can't imagine it.

Forgive me, I may be referring to a misnomer, but I've heard there was an idea being tossed around about Newtonian Laws in Quantum Physics. let me get back to you on this.

I think we're in agreement about science and scientific models, but you've said previously that scientific models are logical. Rather they're not written in stone and they are the best logical conclusion given our conceptualization and technology at any given moment.

The problem is that it is possible to reach two seemingly correct answers through the logical empiricism in science. This typically is a result of not having the tools to generate a more accurate description. But that's only realized when looking back, hindsight is 20/20.

Much easier to describe logic, but you seem to be implying that bad logic is defined as bad logic because it doesn't adhere to a mainstream conceptualization. I cannot yield ground on this, simply saying logic is logic is insufficient. Saying that bad logic is defined by the contradiction it poses when it interacts with "good" logic seems to indicate a very tenuous definition of logic, thereby supporting my view that logic can change; or rather perspectives on logic can change.

Um... Again we agree on most of these bits on science, but I do not believe our models are perfectly capable of describing nature, given that these models are based on mathematics and our understanding of math is by no means complete. Maybe we're disagreeing on this point because I do equate understanding with imagination.

Also would you agree that truth is extrapolated from a cause-effect relationship?

Il_Divo
12-09-2011, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:

If (or rather when) Relativity and Quantum Mechanics will turn out to be wrong, it will be simply because nature works differently.

When theories fail to describe a phenomenon, it's because they're simply models. It has nothing to do with logic.

Agreed, 100%. And it's a pretty huge emphasis of Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions how our current understanding of any scientific concept will eventually be proven wrong, or give way to a much more accurate interpretation. Induction is, by necessity, flawed since it's entirely reliant on observable phenomenon. Our grasp/understanding of nature and science may be constantly increasing, but our reliance on these models/theories pretty much ensures that we will never capture the full truth, since there's alway something more to be learned. That scientists do run into problems relying on these scientific models is a clear indicator of their inability to provide the full picture. Ex: Relying on Newtonian Physics to explain Quantum Mechanics.

LightRey
12-10-2011, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by Agentbarto:
Forgive me, I may be referring to a misnomer, but I've heard there was an idea being tossed around about Newtonian Laws in Quantum Physics. let me get back to you on this.

I think we're in agreement about science and scientific models, but you've said previously that scientific models are logical. Rather they're not written in stone and they are the best logical conclusion given our conceptualization and technology at any given moment.

The problem is that it is possible to reach two seemingly correct answers through the logical empiricism in science. This typically is a result of not having the tools to generate a more accurate description. But that's only realized when looking back, hindsight is 20/20.

Much easier to describe logic, but you seem to be implying that bad logic is defined as bad logic because it doesn't adhere to a mainstream conceptualization. I cannot yield ground on this, simply saying logic is logic is insufficient. Saying that bad logic is defined by the contradiction it poses when it interacts with "good" logic seems to indicate a very tenuous definition of logic, thereby supporting my view that logic can change; or rather perspectives on logic can change.

Um... Again we agree on most of these bits on science, but I do not believe our models are perfectly capable of describing nature, given that these models are based on mathematics and our understanding of math is by no means complete. Maybe we're disagreeing on this point because I do equate understanding with imagination.

Also would you agree that truth is extrapolated from a cause-effect relationship?
I think you're missing the point. Scientific theories don't (and can't) have a full, perfect basis to deduce every aspect of nature from. That is impossible. Scientific theories are simply possible solutions to the "problem" of nature, based on available data. The ones that have been tested the most and never scientifically proven wrong, such as Quantum Mechanics, are the most reliable ones.

It's impossible to find a perfect model to describe nature as we don't know what the laws of nature are based on. If we did, we'd be able to logically deduce all of nature's laws and workings.

Scientific theories literally guess what the basis of nature is, based on experimental results. This is known as induction. With this guessed basis, they work out what nature would be like using logic and then, if all available experimental data does not contradict it, it's a valid theory.

To give a comparison:
Say you have a video game like Assassin's Creed. Assassin's Creed has a code. Let's say there's no way for you to find out directly what that code is. Then the only way to determine it's code is by experimenting and observing the game's mechanics and then making models, which would basically be writing your own code, and then see if that code, given the circumstances in the game, would duplicate its effects.

That's basically what science does.

Agentbarto
12-10-2011, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agentbarto:
Forgive me, I may be referring to a misnomer, but I've heard there was an idea being tossed around about Newtonian Laws in Quantum Physics. let me get back to you on this.

I think we're in agreement about science and scientific models, but you've said previously that scientific models are logical. Rather they're not written in stone and they are the best logical conclusion given our conceptualization and technology at any given moment.

The problem is that it is possible to reach two seemingly correct answers through the logical empiricism in science. This typically is a result of not having the tools to generate a more accurate description. But that's only realized when looking back, hindsight is 20/20.

Much easier to describe logic, but you seem to be implying that bad logic is defined as bad logic because it doesn't adhere to a mainstream conceptualization. I cannot yield ground on this, simply saying logic is logic is insufficient. Saying that bad logic is defined by the contradiction it poses when it interacts with "good" logic seems to indicate a very tenuous definition of logic, thereby supporting my view that logic can change; or rather perspectives on logic can change.

Um... Again we agree on most of these bits on science, but I do not believe our models are perfectly capable of describing nature, given that these models are based on mathematics and our understanding of math is by no means complete. Maybe we're disagreeing on this point because I do equate understanding with imagination.

Also would you agree that truth is extrapolated from a cause-effect relationship?
I think you're missing the point. Scientific theories don't (and can't) have a full, perfect basis to deduce every aspect of nature from. That is impossible. Scientific theories are simply possible solutions to the "problem" of nature, based on available data. The ones that have been tested the most and never scientifically proven wrong, such as Quantum Mechanics, are the most reliable ones.

It's impossible to find a perfect model to describe nature as we don't know what the laws of nature are based on. If we did, we'd be able to logically deduce all of nature's laws and workings.

Scientific theories literally guess what the basis of nature is, based on experimental results. This is known as induction. With this guessed basis, they work out what nature would be like using logic and then, if all available experimental data does not contradict it, it's a valid theory.

To give a comparison:
Say you have a video game like Assassin's Creed. Assassin's Creed has a code. Let's say there's no way for you to find out directly what that code is. Then the only way to determine it's code is by experimenting and observing the game's mechanics and then making models, which would basically be writing your own code, and then see if that code, given the circumstances in the game, would duplicate its effects.

That's basically what science does. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely with that, it's this that threw me off

When science fails to allow us to "imagine" a certain phenomenon, it's not because the model fails to describe the phenomenon accurately, it's because our minds don't have the capacity to "imagine" it. That has nothing to do with the models. We can use our models to describe nature perfectly.

My bad, anywho I agree.

LightRey
12-10-2011, 02:52 PM
Well this was a great discussion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I love discussing the uncertainty principle. It's one of my favorite concepts in physics.

Agentbarto
12-10-2011, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
Well this was a great discussion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I love discussing the uncertainty principle. It's one of my favorite concepts in physics.

Yeah it's interesting, personally I have a theory on how the Animus extrapolates past data in spite of the uncertainty principle; feel free to correct me when I post it later this month. (Gonna take too long right now for me to focus on finals...)