Can someone explain string theory in simple terms?
There is a theory called quantum mechanics which explains all sorts of microscopic, particle and optical phenomena including very real-world things like transparency, color, nuclear radiation and the unpredictability of memory and perception. There is another theory called general relativity which explains a lot of astronomical and gravitational phenomena including the existnce of short-lived particles at the Earth's surface, the "lensing" of images around stars and the existence of black holes. The problem is that quantum mechanics and general relativity aren't compatible mathematically with each other. A Theory of Everything would have to find a way to reconcile the two theories. String Theory is one candidate for a theory of everything. String Theory involves particles vibrating in extra spatial dimensions. The extra dimensions would be too small to perceive directly but would affect how particles interact (at the quantum particle level) and gravity, etc. would extend over those dimensions (the general relativity / astronomical scale).
Can anyone explain string theory in simple terms for me?
Think of a guitar string that has been tuned by stretching the string under tension across the guitar. Depending on how the string is plucked and how much tension is in the string, different musical notes will be created by the string. These musical notes could be said to be excitation modes of that guitar string under tension. In a similar manner, in string theory, the elementary particles we observe in particle accelerators could be thought of as the "musical notes" or excitation modes of elementary strings. In string theory, as in guitar playing, the string must be stretched under tension in order to become excited. However, the strings in string theory are floating in spacetime, they aren't tied down to a guitar. Nonetheless, they have tension. The string tension in string theory is denoted by the quantity 1/(2 p a'), where a' is pronounced "alpha prime"and is equal to the square of the string length scale. . If string theory is to be a theory of quantum gravity, then the average size of a string should be somewhere near the length scale of quantum gravity, called the Planck length, which is about 10-33 centimeters, or about a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter. Unfortunately, this means that strings are way too small to see by current or expected particle physics technology (or financing!!) and so string theorists must devise more clever methods to test the theory than just looking for little strings in particle experiments.
As Seeker, How would you explain with simple words what is "Enlightenment" to a newbie?
Nobody can seem to agree on this, but here's one opinion on waking up.First let's consider some really good teachings from the "normal" world:Simcha Bunim of PeshischaOne of the more famous oral teachings attributed to Rabbi Simcha Bunim of Peschischa goes as follows:Everyone must have two pockets, with a note in each pocket, so that he or she can reach into the one or the other, depending on the need. When feeling lowly and depressed, discouraged or disconsolate, one should reach into the right pocket, and, there, find the words: "For my sake was the world created."But when feeling high and mighty one should reach into the left pocket, and find the words: "I am but dust and ashes."Now think about what would happen if both of those cards are put into one pocket? Might they merge or fight? Which one would win? What does that mean "For my sake was the world created."? Is that the world out there?To me, waking up is realizing that god's card - "I am but dust and ashes" - is the overall winner. Our "normal" world is upside down and backwards. We are walking bags of dirt blowing in god's wind with little or zero control. But god's other card - "For my sake was the world created" - is also a winner, but that world exists inside your head. Your world of mental constructs is a much bigger illusion than your mind will normally accept. Our minds take credit for everything or blame someone else, but don't normally assign happenings to "god's wind". We will not see our mental models and stories.Think about a dream, there is all this stuff going on and emotions and activity. But when you wake up, you think "wow I'm glad that's over because all those feelings were disturbing me and since "I" was not really awake and in control of that dream I can see now it was just an illusion." Now in the waking world there is pain and eating food and all that, but what if the feelings, pleasure and disturbing stuff is just an illusion too? You are god's dreamer child acting out your part.Talking about it is one thing, but when you see it and it clicks, that's another. After you see it, it's hard to "unsee". The implications for your inner mental world are also difficult to describe and often far from what you might expect.
Can you define perception? (simple definition.)?
For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/awVsJ Your perception comes from empirical experience. (through your senses) Experience is the first material of your consciousness. It IS you consciousness, which is divided into these: 1.Impressions - it's your first experience. Live, momentary experience. 2.Ideas (thoughts) - your thoughts or memories about impressions. They are not intensive, because they are not momentary. (they are divided into simple and complex) Object of your perception and thinking are just Impressions, not Ideas! He said this because he was agnostic - he thought that the world can not be explored and understood. So you explore things through your senses with impressions and these impressions are your perception. One of the most important things - he said that human mind can think only about what he can perceive (through empirical experience) and he can't think about anything behind that line (like God or anything else you can't sense through your senses) hope I helped.
Can you define perception? (simple definition.)?
For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/awVsJ Your perception comes from empirical experience. (through your senses) Experience is the first material of your consciousness. It IS you consciousness, which is divided into these: 1.Impressions - it's your first experience. Live, momentary experience. 2.Ideas (thoughts) - your thoughts or memories about impressions. They are not intensive, because they are not momentary. (they are divided into simple and complex) Object of your perception and thinking are just Impressions, not Ideas! He said this because he was agnostic - he thought that the world can not be explored and understood. So you explore things through your senses with impressions and these impressions are your perception. One of the most important things - he said that human mind can think only about what he can perceive (through empirical experience) and he can't think about anything behind that line (like God or anything else you can't sense through your senses) hope I helped.
What is the Big Bang Theory (in simple terms)?
An astronomer named Georges Lemaître proposed that a very long time ago, the universe started as just a single point. He said the universe stretched and expanded to get as big as it is now, and that it could keep on stretching.When the universe began, it was just hot, tiny particles mixed with light and energy. It was nothing like what we see now. As everything expanded and took up more space, it cooled down. This theory came to be called as The Big Bang Theory. The summarised points of this theory are as follows-1. The tiny particles grouped together. They formed atoms. Then those atoms grouped together. These atoms came together to form stars and galaxies.2. The first stars created bigger atoms and groups of atoms called molecules. That led to more stars being born.3. At the same time, galaxies were crashing and grouping together. As new stars were being born and dying, then things like asteroids, comets, planets, and black holes formed.
What are some examples of simple concepts that are very hard to explain?
An interesting question; I'm looking forward to seeing more answers! It makes me think of the conversations people sometimes have that go like this:"What animal would you most like to be?""Uh. A cat.""Why a cat?""Well, they're so independent and free, and they are very beautiful. And they have human slaves that take care of them all the time..."To be sure, conversations like this can be pleasing, and funny or intimate. I'm not going to say that you shouldn't have them. They work well on first dates. But people hardly ever seem to realise that if you think about it a little bit harder, the question "What animal would you most like to be" is actually inconsistent!Imagine your consciousness in a cat body. The question is, do you now have a cat brain or a human brain?If you retain your human brain, then you run into trouble: aside from the fact that your brain does not fit inside a cat head, your brain also can't operate a cat body. The hormones your brain releases are all wrong; you have not even learned how to breathe properly with a cat body. If you didn't die within seconds, you would at the very least be unable to move. This problem is more profound than it may seem at first: even if the interface between your brain and the cat body were fixed somehow, your brain would not know how to process the sensory input from cat eyes and ears, which is very different from human sensory input.If on the other hand, you receive a cat brain, then you are no longer you. Your consciousness is a product of your human brain; replace the brain and you get a new consciousness. (As the joke goes, a brain transplant is the one transplant where you really want to be the donor rather than the recipient!) A cat is not able to understand language, and well, they are pretty stupid. (Just watch on youtube what happens when you confront them with a cucumber!)I think our ability to ignore this inconsistency relies on our tendency to think of body and mind as separate entities. It is easy for us to imagine our consciousness in a different body, because for some reason it is easy for us to ignore how our consciousness is actually produced by our bodies.This is somehow a very hard concept for people to come to terms with. Duality of body and mind is an illusion.
What is perception?
Perception means the way we try to understand the world around us.Let me share a picture about perception or point of view and this one is very interesting.In this picture, there is a cylinder and if we project a light from one side, the projection is circle and from another side the projection is square.If someone (let x) see the cylinder from one side, X will see the structure as circle and someone (let Y) see the cylinder from another side, Y will see the structure as square.Now if X and Y start arguing about the structure, then who is correct? Both are right and both are similarly wrong. X is right with respect to his point of view and Y is right with respect to his point of view.So the reality with respect to X is circle and the reality with respect to Y is square.Your perception creates your reality.In the above picture, the original structure is shown as truth. In real world, we can only see true facts but we can't see the whole truth as our senses are limited. Because every single thing in this universe carries unlimited informations related to unlimited point of views.There is no truth, there is only perception.-by Gustave Flaubert.So don't be too serious about your point of view because it is just a point of view and you may be wrong with respect to another's perspective.We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.-by Anaïs Nin.Thank you for reading.Image source : Google.
What is Immanuel Kants epistemology in simple terms?
His epistemology combines the knowledge we gain from experience and the knowledge we gain from reason.
How would you simply explain qualia?
How would I explain qualia in simple terms? This is the perfect question for me, in that my explanation is relatively simple and nontechnical:Let’s say that the neural correlate of a pain, a neural impulse, appears on the screen of a brain monitor. Well, obviously there is something that appears in sense perception as that neural impulse. That something, which appears as the neural impulse, is the pain as one usually conceives of a pain, in mentalistic terms.Here is the explanation:The subject (in the sense of a psychological experiment) registers the neural impulse, but he does not perceive it in any way whatever. It stands to reason that he can register it, in that it occurs in his brain in the course of normal neurological functioning. And of course he does not perceive it. He does not look at it, for example. In his case, as opposed to that of the neuroscientist at the screen of the brain monitor, no perceptual processing of the neural impulse takes place.The subject, then, registers the neural impulse but does not perceive it in any way, and he conceives of it as a pain, for he learned in childhood to call such things pains.He feels the pain in that he registers it, then, not in that he perceives it, for he does not perceive it. This, perhaps, is the major sticking point: It is very difficult to believe that you do not perceive your own toothache. But the truth is that you do not. You feel it, yes, all too convincingly, but absolutely, you do not perceive it in any way. If you did perceive it, you would perceive it as a neural impulse, for that is what it is.The neural impulse, then, is the pain as the pain appears in sense perception. But that is to say, it is the pain, period.A pain, then, is a neural impulse, and, to generalize, consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon.To answer your question, the quale painfulness is a physical aspect of the neural impulse which quite literally constitutes the pain.I wish that someone would try to show me why this doesn’t work.