lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Origins and Possibilities for the Universe (not a creation/big bang debate)
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 10-17-2003, 02:02 PM   #1
Master_Keralys
Forumite
 
Master_Keralys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Writing orchestral music.
Posts: 612
Lightbulb Origins and Possibilities for the Universe (not a creation/big bang debate)

Okay, here's the new thread moved from the rationality/irrationality debate.

We were talking about the possibilities of an infinite universe, with infinite time (no beginning and no end). The end of the idea so far is still over there (unless a mod wants to move it for us ) for those not familira with it. Please post in this thread, not that one.

Also, to be clear, this is not a creation vs. big bang debate, and we don't want it to become one. I am asking the moderators to remove any posts that become inflammatory towards that debate; that is an excellent topic but not, I repeat with emphasis not a thread for that topic. Thank you.


Master_Keralys is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-17-2003, 03:56 PM   #2
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
Ok - I have thought up a fairly involved and long analogy to try and explain how futile I think it is to try and rationalise outside the 'universe' of space and time that we can detect, whether through our own senses, or through any technology we create -and then think you've hit anywhere near the mark.

I warn you, this is a bit long, so get your reading heads on.
Also, I do touch on areas of theology in here, but I don't want to write this thing out twice, so please don't accuse me of going off the topic of the thread - I think it's relavent to the topic anyway really...

Here goes:
--------------

Imagine a senario where a kid digs up an ant nest and sticks it inside a big old metal box with some dirt.

Now of course, the ants couldn't survive indefinetely without air or a regenerating ecosystem all contained in the box itself, but let's - for the sake of argument - assume that the ants have enough inside the box to survive for several 'generations'.

OK - now let's move forward a bit in time.
Any ants living at the time of the 'move' into the box are dead, and the only ants alive now have never seen anything outside the metal box.

THey have - in the mean time - between them explored every inch of the box.

The 'universe' of the ants is the metal box. They have no way of seeing though it, smelling anything outside it etc. etc. They have NO way of detecting:

a. What is outside the box.
b. Whether anything is outside the box to detect in the first place.

As you can probably guess, my analogy is that the metal box 'universe' of the ants can be seen as analogous to the 'universe' that we - as human kind - can 'detect' - whether with our own senses, or with any technology we can produce.

OK - now let's imagine that a particular ant - a very intelligent ant - the einstein of ants! - decides to try and work out HOW, WHEN and WHY they ended up within the 'box'.
AND - work out not only IF anything is out there, but WHAT...?

(Let's assume he's already climbed over the first intellectial hurdle - that there possibly CAN be something outside the box)

Let's imagine that through some kind of limited ant-communication, it is common knowledge that the ants used to live in a much bigger area (as far as they would be concerned, they would probably consider this WITHOUT BOUNDRY) and then 'suddenly', they were in a box.

...this could just be considered 'folklore' by some ants - who knows. But since it's some of the only clues the ant has, he considers it to have SOME relavence.
...so the ant concludes that, maybe, they were put into the box 'deliberatly' - by some kind of 'higher being'.

OK - so far, so good. This assumption would be correct...

The ant also, however, assumes that whoever put them in the box was omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. AFter all, they can create an entire 'unvierse' and keep them inside it.
THis is INCORRECT. A human kid may be unimaginably superior to an ant mind, but a human child is certainly NOT a GOD!

The ant recalls an occurance in his childhood (probably a couple of days ago or something! lol! How long do ants live?) where everything in the box (the dirt etc.) 'moved'. Most of the ants couldn't understand why it happenned, and didn't give it any more thought.

...but the CLEVER ant decides to ask around and see whether everything moved the same amount, or whether certain 'areas' didn't move so much.

...he asks around, and interestingly, some areas did move more than others. On the 'east' side of the box, (or whatever concept ants have for a particular direction) there was a GREAT upheaval. In fact, many ants died as a result.

...however, on the westside (aaaiiigghht!) there was practically no movement at all.

So, the ant theorises that the 'box' - or the 'universe' was TIPPED on it's side. (I told you, this is one f**king smart ant!!) The other ants are amazed by the theory! It makes total sense.

...ok, so now the next question is - WHAT moved the box and WHY?

They quickly determine that none of their actions caused the whole universe to tip over!! After all, they didn't do anything different that day. So it must have been some kind of external force.



OK - so far, I believe my analogy shows a few things:

* FAITH (or as I would refer to it - guesswork) is SOMETIMES going to work out, especially when coupled with rational thinking - i.e. what you make an 'educated' guess to be true sometimes may be true. But other aspects of your 'faith' may not be.
To be specific, the ants faith there was a higher intelligence was correct. His faith that this higher inrelligence was all-powerful was FALSE.


Ok - so now here comes along an 'agnostic' ant
THis is also a fairly intelligent ant, maybe less than the Einstein ant, doesn't really matter.
THe important thing is this ant admits that there is NO WAY that you can know what is outside that box.

You can quite confidently say there is SOMETHING outside the box - sure. It makes sense. If the box moved, and it obviously wasn't us, then either the box itself is alive and has the ability to move itself, or there is an external power with the ability to move it.

Now, they have never seen the sides of the box do anything. THey are just there. Big black walls on all sides. They don't communicate. They don't move. They don't show any signs of 'life'. So, it's safe to assume that the box did not move itself...

...unless the box has TOTALLY different properties on the OUTSIDE than it does on the INSIDE! After all, all the ants can see are the inside. Who's to say that the box isn't some super-solid cavity insode some other living creature. For most of the time, it stays dorment. BUt for SOME reason, that day - it decided to move...


Now for my second point:
HAVING AN OPEN MIND IS ALSO NO HELP TO UNDERSTAND THINGS TOTALLY BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION OR EXPERIENCE.

The 'creature' idea may seem really open-minded and radical to some ants, and maybe some buy it.

...but the Agnostic ant does not accept this explaination. To him, guesswork is only as good as it can be verified. Guesswork with NO way to verify it is just that - a guess. And as such, is pointless to 'cling' to.

So, what does the Agnostic ant do? He admits that there are two possibilities:

a. We will NEVER be able to see or experience anything outside the box - in which case we will only guess and have 'faith' as to what is out there. If there is anything 'intelligent' outside, and it decides to give us more 'clues' - or, who knows - even LET US OUT OF THE BOX - then we will know. But that's not up to us, or within our control...

b. WE FIND A WAY TO EITHER SEE 'THROUGH' THE BOX, OR GET OUT OF THE BOX. Then we can know for sure what is there.


Since the Agnostic ant knows A is out of his control, he throws all his energies into B. he gnaws away at the edge of the box. Other ants may laugh at him 'Haha - the edge of the universe is IMPENETERABLE! We've tried for generations to get through it! Why are you gnawing away at it?! lol'

If he has some concept of technology, he may try and build a mechanism, or a device to try and see through or break the barriers of the universe.

The bottom line is, he does not accept he has to rely on guesswork to determine the truth. The Agnostic ant will listen to the various theories, and maybe he even has a favourite one which he likes (maybe the idea that the world outside the box is entirely made out of sugar! MMMM - yum!!) - but he DOESN'T ever say 'I know this theory is true' or 'that theory is true'.

He will only ever say he knows the minute he can see, smell and taste the outside of the box himself. Until then, the Agnostic Ant simply does not know one way or the other...


I know I've slipped into a bit of Agnostic 'preaching'. Sorry!
But it is relavent to this thread. We want to try and rationally talk about what exists or doesn't exist outside our universe -or whether the universe is infinite...
Or we want to talk about what did or did not exist BEFORE our universe started, or whether time is in fact infinite...

...I believe this is JUST a theoretical exersise. I do not believe any theory besed on our limited experience. We have to SOMEHOW find a way to DETECT past the current boundries of our concepts of space and time before we can even try and KNOW.

Until then, theorising and guessing ALONE (rationally or irrationally) is not going to give you the answer.

Last edited by CloseTheBlastDo; 10-20-2003 at 11:25 PM.
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-17-2003, 07:12 PM   #3
Master_Keralys
Forumite
 
Master_Keralys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Writing orchestral music.
Posts: 612
Quote:
...I believe this is JUST a theoretical exersise. I do not believe any theory besed on our limited experience. We have to SOMEHOW find a way to DETECT past the current boundries of our concepts of space and time before we can even try and KNOW.

Until then, theorising and guessing (rationally or irrationally) is not going to give you the answer.
Well said. There is no way with current tech and whatnot to see beyond the bounds of the universe. Moreover, it doesn't matter how far back in time we can see, all we can see is the universe. Period. There is no way of seeing past the BB, and at that point everything is a singularity. Until we can somehow tunnel out of our universe (either physically or otherwise), we can't know if there is something else definitively.

Again, this is disturbing to many people. That's okay, to quote Einstein (with a little paraphrasing), The universe isn't limited to what humanity can understand.


Master_Keralys is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-17-2003, 07:55 PM   #4
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
I think it's worth mentioning that we HAVE been at these kinds of boundries before.

We used to think the 'sky' was the boundry of the universe. Or at least the bounds of the 'rational' universe. Past that, it was the realm of the gods, or the devils - or whatever. But we coudlnt' just 'travel' there by 'mortal' means...

The myth of Icarus describes a man TRYING to think 'outside the box' and saying -'hey, why not TRY and see if the sky is ACTUALLY the boundy of our universe'.

...of course, first of all, the idea of flying with a pair of wings made of feathers strapped to your arms - from a jumpstart - is irrational enough (or is it...?! lol), regardless of the part where he flies close enough to the sun to get his wings burnt!!

(Of course the creator(s) of this 'myth' would not have considered the possibilities. They would have no hope of convieving of the 90-million mile wide gulf of insurviveable vacuum Icarus would have had to have crossed for the story to be true!! )

Then, we worked out that - actually - there were things 'up there' which followed rational patterns of movement. i.e. not incomprehensible Gods, but bodies that follow the same patterns we can see here on 'rational' earth.

So we come to the concept of the solar system - even though we nievely put the earth at the centre of it! But at least we've managed to extend the boundry a bit.

So it's not the theorising in the first place that I'm critizising. I have no problem with the idea that there is - INDEED -SOMETHING past the big bang.

I would no more critisise theoretical Icarus for his attempt to reach the sun.

Who I WOULD critisise is anybody who thinks they know what the answers to the universe are through PURE reasoning, without any kind of rational measurements or 'data' -whether religious or non-religious...

Last edited by CloseTheBlastDo; 10-17-2003 at 08:46 PM.
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-17-2003, 08:23 PM   #5
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
I've just thought of an interesting twist to my 'Ants-in-metal-box' analogy...

...let's theroise - for the moment - that these ants in the box did not have the ability to actually climb the walls of the box for some strange reason...

...or just imagine that these are a different kind of small creature that couldn't scale the walls....

...anyway, they could very well believe their 'rational' universe is only on the BOTTOM of the box.

All they can detect at the edges of the box are walls which go up some unknown distance.

Now comes along 'open-minded' ant who says:

'Why are you other ants so bogged down with the idea that this box has a top at all? If you open your mind a bit, you could reach the 'obvious' conclusion that THERE IS NO TOP!! The walls on all sides of us just carry on up - and on and on into infinity...'
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-17-2003, 09:07 PM   #6
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
Quote:
Can a truly infinite universe be expanding?
Missed this point earlier... it's a good one.

Man, my head is starting to hurt again!! lol
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-18-2003, 06:43 PM   #7
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
Cosmos Jack,

My replies to your comments from the rational thinking thread:

Quote:
Thanks for telling me things I already know; though, I will add this. If you want to go with the "BIG BANG?" Yes all the matter that is in the universe was compressed to a object smaller than a proton. The big bang didn't create anything that wasn't already there. It was the begining of this universe not the begining of matter. That is excepted part of the "Big Bang theory." So like I said all matter that has existed always existed even before the big bang.
First of all, I mentioned the big bang so that we could both have a reference point of discussion. Instead you seem to have turned it into some point of contention, quite unnessesarily I might add.

I'm sorry if you found my description of the big bang theory 'insulting' because you already know it. Seems a trivial thing to get insulted over though if you don't mind me saying so, especially since I have no way of knowing exactly what you do and don't know apart from the things you happen to have posted before...

...you sound like someone with a bit of a permament chip on their shoulder. For whatever reason. But anyway...


Yes, indeed, The Big Bang theory has NOTHING to do with how matter was created - it never has. I know you've already said this, but you seem to be implying that because I mentioned the big bang, I'm trying to say 'This is when I think matter was created'.

...I never said any such thing, neither did I come anywhere near implying it.

The big bang theory is about mapping out the 'history' of the matter that we can detect within our current understanding of the 'universe'. It makes NO predictions in and of itself as to where the matter come from in the first place - this is NOT any part of the theory.

...people like to imply their own truths FROM the big bang theory - but that's a different matter. I certainly did not make any assumption - in fact I have made it quite clear right from the beginning that I don't believe in stating assumptions as if they are fact.

Quote:
If it does collapse all matter would be compressed to a tiny point like the one the big bang started with. With this theory the "BIG BANG" could happen again and again and again......
As far as I know, the latest data seems to indicate that the matter of the universe is NOT going to be pulled back to a singularity i.e. the universe is going to continue expanding forever. How reliable that is though...? :shrug:

But anyway, IF all the matter in the universe WAS eventually pulled back to a singularity, what makes you think ANOTHER big bang would be triggered...?!

And even if this is the case, then the infinte backwards time paradox is then STILL valid. Unless you think a different 'concept' of space-time other than our own could be created from the expansion of the same matter...

Quote:
So in all unknown logic a universe not to unlike this one most likely existed before the big bang. Assuming the universe will collapse in on itself...
You are free to think this, and I would have no idea whether you are wrong, or right.
But, this is pure, unadulterated speculation with NO rational basis.

Quote:
I will remind you the most excepted ideas in science are not always right. Scientist once believe the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around this. This was excepted as more than theory, but fact. The best observations are not always correct. Answers aren't answers if they just lead to questions.

If you were a little kid and someone gave you a 10X10 mile wide play ground to play in full of toys and candy? Would you tie yourself to a pole and run around in a 10 foot circle? Answers aren't answers if they just lead to questions. I will just leave my out of the box thinking where it is and say no more....
If you read my posts carefully, you will see that I DO NOT critise 'open-minded' theoretical exersises concerning the origins or boundries of everything.

i.e. I have NO problem with you, me or anybody else trying to think OUTSIDE the box.

WHat I DO critisise is thinking that just because your theory makes sense to you, you fall into the trap of thinking it's likely, or probable.

...I'm sorry, I'm afraid I disagree. Your just like an ant trapped in a box (Just like I am). You have no more way of knowing what's past or outside our observable universe than the ants can know what is outside their box.

Put it this way - even Stephen Hawking, even though he also likes to theorise about the TRUE origins of matter and 'everything' - clearly admits that any ideas that HE has which currently rely on observations we simply cannot make yet are not any more likely to be true than anybody elses ideas.
That is both the arrogance and the humility of his craft. Admitting your just an ant in a box, and yet you are trying to break your way into the realm of the Gods...

THe only way your theories can have any 'rational' backing is when our ability to observe and comprehend fundementally increases. The initial theorising helps us to make the leap in the first place - but almost certainly the theory you held BEFORE our comprehension increased will not actually pan out as you planned..


Another trap you fall into is over-using the theoretical 'tool' of INFINITY.

Constructing the concept of 'infinity' was a great leap forward in theoretical and mathematical thinking. As the numbers we were working with get bigger and bigger and bigger, suddenly it hits us: 'Ahhhh - what IS the biggest number?! What if there isn't actually a limit to how high the numbers can go..!!'

Infinity helps us in many ways to get around many mathematical issues. And I think humans can take some pride in having become 'smart' enough to even conceptualise such a concept.

...but please be aware that just because we now have the ability to 'invisage' infinity, DOESN'T mean it actually DOES exist in 'real' terms when we 'assume' or it 'makes sense' to us that it does...

That's not me limiting the universe to my little, puny, human ideas! That's just stating a fact!

Infinity is just one of a many number of intellectial 'tools' we have at our disposal to try and help us rationalise the world around us.
And infinity is a POWERFUL tool.

(In the same way that God is a powerful, intellectual tool. In fact, the concept of God is inter-twined with infinity - INFINITELY powerful, INFINITELY aware etc. etc.)

The concept of infinity can magically make ALL KINDS of rational problems just 'go away'.

It's like a quick 'intellectual' fix that can be easiely and quickly 'plastered over' many of our biggest rational problems.

But please realise that that's ALL it is - a theroetical fix. If you have no rational 'data' or 'observation' with which to try and justify your theory - that is ALL IT IS - an unproven, unsubstantiated THEORY.

In short, your idea that the source of matter is SOLVED with the concept of infinity is - technically - no more rational than the 'religious' person who uses the idea of 'God' to solve it.

Quote:
Reading your replies all I can say is this. I hit my ball of an idea to the far left of the baseball field and both of you ran to the far right.. 9/10ths of your responses had nothing to really do with what I type.
you are free to believe that if you like...

Last edited by CloseTheBlastDo; 10-20-2003 at 10:21 AM.
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-18-2003, 07:13 PM   #8
shukrallah
White Dragon
 
shukrallah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,250
Maybe (like CTBD said) it never ends... although its hard to imagine... how does it never end??!! We (people) have an end (death, not commenting on life after death) and all places around us have an end... our own galaxy ends somewhere. IT doesnt extend forever... I dont think people can comprehend that. Like things not having a beginning, its impossible for a human being to imagine what it would be like to have always been there.... no beginning just there. We cant really truly understand it, because we havnt experienced it. (i dont believe it was always there) anyways, then theres the part where there could be nothing out there, past the universe. What would nothing look like anyways? I dont get it. When i make a map for jk2 or ja, the "universe" is the map, its like a huge complicated box. Of course, with cheat codes you can leave the walls that surround you, and go into the "void" which is basically endless space... supposidly going on forever. Have you ever tried "noclip" theres nothing out there at all. In the map editor, its just grey out there, and nothing else (eldritch knows what im talking about, hes better at mapping than me thought) just thought id say something...
shukrallah is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-18-2003, 07:18 PM   #9
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
Luke,

I need to clarify - I'm NOT saying it never ends. Neither am I saying it DOES end.
...I'm fully admitting that I don't know. And we may NEVER know...

If you weren't implying that was my belief - but just referring to what I metioned as a theoretical theory - I apologise...
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-18-2003, 07:25 PM   #10
shukrallah
White Dragon
 
shukrallah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,250
Quote:
If you weren't implying that was my belief - but just referring to what I metioned as a theoretical theory - I apologise...
I wasnt, i was just basically saying, it could never end, and it could... i dont know either.
shukrallah is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2003, 10:39 AM   #11
Homuncul
 
Homuncul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 383
CTDB just loves those long sophisticated posts directed to understanding say of a single matter such as: "We should not talk about assumptions as if they were facts". Although in practice literally we would always talk about them as if they were facts, the difference would be only for those who know that these "facts" are only assumptions. Well I guess we can truelly truelly talk only about syllogisms: facts are facts, assumptions are assumptions. There is a russian saying and a lot of similar sayings all over the world, translating from russian it sounds like this: "Curtness is a sister of a talent". Someone here needs to learn how to use it (don't stare at me, I don't know how to use it)

Quote:
CTDB:
HAVING AN OPEN MIND IS ALSO NO HELP TO UNDERSTAND THINGS TOTALLY BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION OR EXPERIENCE.
The other thing here is how can you tell anything to be beyond our comprehension or experience in principle?

Quote:
Master_Keralys
Period. There is no way of seeing past the BB, and at that point everything is a singularity. Until we can somehow tunnel out of our universe (either physically or otherwise), we can't know if there is something else definitively.
We can't see atoms unless they fall into our eyes but we seem to "know" quite a lot about them. Singularity is a temporal problem not concerning singularity as an abstraction itself. Any can't-knows our only about present moment. This word "singularity" just temorary fills the gap of understadning.

By the way, all statements about "we can't know something" is just the same assumption presented as a fact. I suggest we try to use words such as "seem" there.

Quote:
CTBD:
As far as I know, the latest data seems to indicate that the matter of the universe is NOT going to be pulled back to a singularity i.e. the universe is going to continue expanding forever. How reliable that is though...? :shrug:
It is also only a matter of assumption. How close our universe is to the limit from where it should expand further or collapse is still not so accurate. Either way if it's even a piece of a bit lower than the limit it would still collapse, just it will take more time exponentially to do so (and we'll have more 2 or 3 billions of year. Great News!). And of course if you read about Tipler's omega-point, you won't start running along the treets of your city screeming:"The universe will collapse, we're all gonna die!" (Perhaps won't )

Quote:
Luke:
Of course, with cheat codes you can leave the walls that surround you, and go into the "void" which is basically endless space... supposidly going on forever. Have you ever tried "noclip" theres nothing out there at all. In the map editor, its just grey out there, and nothing else (eldritch knows what im talking about, hes better at mapping than me thought) just thought id say something...
This is just the way you see it. And there is nothing more to see here (only to reevalueate). Although the analogy is not the best coz even Maya is limited to finite numbers (not mentioning 3dsmax, gmax or milkshape), your abstractive vision of infinity is correct to the point where your emotions get in the way. That's the same as talking afterdeath when knowing that death physically is shouldn't be so different from falling asleep.

Excellent thread by the way.
Homuncul is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2003, 10:47 AM   #12
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185


Since you don't like big, overly-long replies H (although I COULD argue that's a bit hypocritical, but in the nicest possible way of course! ), I'll make this one short and sweet:
The only words I object to in the following statement are the ones marked in bold:
Quote:
So in all unknown logic a universe not to unlike this one most likely existed before the big bang. Assuming the universe will collapse in on itself...
I would be more pleased if the words were replaced with:
Quote:
So in all unknown logic , my theory is a universe not to unlike this one existed before the big bang. Assuming the universe will collapse in on itself...
Your view may be that the difference doesn't mean anything. I, however, think it does.
It's the same difference that marks out religious people. Making more of assumptions than is warranted.

Then, of course, you have to define 'assumption'. I accept this, and I have tried to - through the course of my 'long posts', in this thread, and also in other threads - especially the 'agnostic thinking' one.

At the end of the day, if people would just agree with everything I say, I wouldn't need to make long replies!
(By the way - that last part IS a joke)

P.S.

H,
I believe my words...

Quote:
How reliable that is though...? :shrug:
...indicates quite clearly that I saw that statement as nowhere near certain.
However, I would say the idea that all known matter in the universe will fly apart forever has FAR more backing than the idea that a universe like our own existed BEFORE the big bang.

The first idea at least has SOME data to back it.
The second has NO data to directly back it. (At least that I'm aware of)

Last edited by CloseTheBlastDo; 10-20-2003 at 03:28 PM.
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2003, 11:51 AM   #13
Homuncul
 
Homuncul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 383
I'll correct myself:

Quote:
I agree with your assumption, and would also like point that it's also a matter of assumption of how close our universe is to the limit from where it should expand further or collapse is still not so accurate. Either way...bla-bla-bla
Quote:
CTDBbbbbrrrr
At the end of the day, if people would just agree with everything I say, I wouldn't need to make long replies!
(By the way - that last part IS a joke)
I would be surprised to know they survived your posts, not mentioning in such exhausted condition they would probably agree that parrots know what they say
Homuncul is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2003, 12:00 PM   #14
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
Quote:
I agree with your assumption, and would also like point that it's also a matter of assumption of how close our universe is to the limit from where it should expand further or collapse is still not so accurate. Either way...bla-bla-bla
THat assumption is based on the asumption that all the data we've collected throught the whole of human history doesn't nessesarily mean anything at all.

i.e. our whole human experience could just be one big illusion of the senses.

That can be assumed.
And I assume some people do assume this.

...we can do this for quite a while if you like


So if you want to be padantic about it, I do make TWO assumptions:

1. We - as human beings - have the capacity to collect 'data' concerning our surrounding enviromnent that in some way accurately represents it.

2. This 'data' we collect is more substantial and means 'more' than theoretical thought alone.

If these two assumptions cannot be agreed upon, then we may as well all just resign ourselves to irrationality... (Gods, infinite time - whichever one turns your crank and makes you a happy bunny...)

Last edited by CloseTheBlastDo; 10-20-2003 at 12:56 PM.
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2003, 12:19 PM   #15
Homuncul
 
Homuncul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 383
Quote:
1. We - as human beings - have the capacity to collect 'data' concerning our surrounding enviromnent that in some way accurately represents it.
What, I thought you were agnostic? There are more realistic notes here.

Quote:
2. This 'data' we collect is more substantial and means 'more' than theoretical thought alone.
Well it depends on it, I'd say, and wouldn't put it that straight. Other than that, I guess I have nothing here to disagree with.
Homuncul is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2003, 12:23 PM   #16
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
Quote:
1. We - as human beings - have the capacity to collect 'data' concerning our surrounding enviromnent that in some way accurately represents it.
Hmmm - it's interesting that you see this statement as 'contradicting' agnostic thought.

I think we may have FINALLY found a point which may clear up some ambiguity here.

Please explain why you think the above statement is contradictory to agnostic thinking?

Last edited by CloseTheBlastDo; 10-20-2003 at 01:10 PM.
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2003, 01:12 PM   #17
Homuncul
 
Homuncul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 383
"We - as human beings - have the capacity to collect 'data' concerning our surrounding enviromnent that in some way accurately represents it."

Taken as a strong determinative of your world view, this statement would have to spoil your vision of uncertainty (If you have one) (I predict we'll have a problem of terminology discussing it). Agnostics simply say: "Probably there'll be always something more to know, and this process we would probably meet something incapable of being known.". I don't like so much uncertainty about their views. Being able to change your view instanteneusly has nothing to do with taking anything as uncertain. Again I agree that in practice and literally it won't sound so different

First of all you use this statement as uncertain but yet important part of your world view . Instead of assuming this statement I say It's accurately true, the measure of truth of which would be how much of an explanational impact it gives to our understanding of reality. I call fundamental things true, while agnostics can't say that (they assume they are so f**king probable to be true). That of course won't make any problem in living our lives, but it can seriusly complicate scientifc method with uneeded complication (I can hear Jub is recovering his body from eternal dust, training his finger muscles, taking his keyboard out of the closet and starts typing something hidius). We are not scientists of course, at least I'm not, but I still think it's important.
Homuncul is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2003, 02:36 PM   #18
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
There may be problems with clash of terms.
...but I think there may be something else as well...

I think there are actually TWO areas of dispute, where maybe you are only seeing one.

ONE area of dispute is how ACCURATELY we can record and interperate data.
And yes, I do believe we have disagreement on this.

I will always hold the possibility - no matter how small - that we didn't QUITE read the data as accurately as possible, because we are working with faliable instruments built with our infalible hands, or otherwise we are working with our falible senses.
I think your view is that - even though you admit instruments or senses CAN be falible, if the data we SEEMED to collect makes sense, and provides positive evidence towards rational theories, we have every right to see that as 'truth'.

My view, however, is that data collected faliably which then matches 'intelligent' theories could be co-incidence, not truth. But, as more and more data is collected, in many many different ways, and the data STILL co-incides with our rationally thought out theories, I will say the chance of 'co-incidental error' gets so small, that you can just call it 'truth'.

I would still admit the 'possibility' of error - no matter how small.
You would say 'What's the point of letting such a small possibility worry you? Just admit it's true'.
You could have a point. And once the possibility does get small enough, then we would essentially be speaking as one voice anyway - regardless of whether I still hold the possibility in the back of my mind or not.

OK - so that's one point where we may disagree. But I don't think that's a massive point of contention.


...here's where I think we actually disagree more strongly:

I don't think you can ever disprove God.
...this is an ENTIRELY different problem from imperfect observation. This is whether you can disprove an irrational concept in a rational manner. I don't think you can...

i.e. we won't ever get close to being at a point where we are practically speaking with one voice about the fact that God doesn't exist.

And I've argued a few times that God is actually - at the very least - not trivial to PROVE either!!

I think your view is that once you have proven God to be not nessesary, then essentially you have disproven the whole theory of God itself.
I don't believe this is true though. The counter-argument is that God has succeded in covering his tracks well enough so that you are fooled into coming to the conclusion he does not exist!!

I'm saying that when it comes to a theory like God (and please note I'm not talking about a specific God here - like Biblical God. I'm talking about God as a concept), you may as well not try to prove or dis-prove it rationally in the first place, because it's not possible.

Infinity is also close to God in this respect. The concept of infinity, while not impossible to prove rationally - is DAMN DIFFICULT to prove rationally.
The only reason I would not say it's impossible to prove infinity is because unlike God, infinity - in and of itself - is not sentient. i.e. it won't try and HIDE from you if you try and find it, like God might!
...but the fact is infinity - for me at least - is right on the boundry between rationality and irrationality, and should be treated with 'caution' in rational terms.

I'll let you reply and at least confirm that this more accurately describes our 'disagreement' before we carry on arguing the particulars

Last edited by CloseTheBlastDo; 10-20-2003 at 09:22 PM.
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2003, 07:20 PM   #19
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So in all unknown logic a universe not to unlike this one most likely existed before the big bang. Assuming the universe will collapse in on itself...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I would be more pleased if the words were replaced with:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So in all unknown logic , my theory is a universe not to unlike this one existed before the big bang. Assuming the universe will collapse in on itself...
I think you just made me into a plagiarizer, because that's not my theory. So I like the words back where they were. I'm sorry you have a hard time with my ideas and "obviously" the ideas of others, but it's no need to be rude..

Here is a book and a web page you should go read before plagiarizing me further by making all my statements my idea alone... While I don't agree with everything they say there are parts that make since and even work together...
http://www.fourwallseightwindows.com...ernglass1.html

http://www.nature.com/nsu/020422/020422-17.html


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2003, 07:30 PM   #20
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Red face

Quote:
Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo
If these two assumptions cannot be agreed upon, then we may as well all just resign ourselves to irrationality... (Gods, infinite time - whichever one turns your crank and makes you a happy bunny...)
I think you are too busy irrationally cranking your own happy bunny with your own ideas to listen to anyone elses, unless their idea cranks your bunny too...


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2003, 09:09 PM   #21
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
Cosmos Jack,

Thanks for the link. The book does looks very interesting.
That's actually not sarcasm. I do find the theory interesting, and I want to learn more about it.

However, I would like to learn more about it from somebody less likely to fly off the handle because he's looked at the wrong way

...and, NOW here comes the sarcasm:
[sarcasm]
Although, of course, the people who are clearly stating the highly theoretical nature of the ideas in the second link are stupidly closed-minded, just like myself - which is why they don't just immediately believe everything implied by it. (a.k.a. they don't believe everything they hear)
...how nieve, and small-minded of them...
[/sarcasm]

Quote:
I think you are too busy irrationally cranking your own happy bunny with your own ideas to listen to anyone elses, unless their idea cranks your bunny too...
A stunning retort. Newton and Einstein would be proud.

And to your whole 'rant' about me 'plagiarizing' you -ermm - nice over-reacting. I was only trying to make my point clear to H -and had no intention of being rude by 'altering' the words. Although it's quite clear you don't need much reason to take offense...

...and sorry about not knowing it wasn't just your theory. My mind reading abilities aren't what they used to be. Especially over internet data packets - that get's a bit tricky you know...

Anyway - let's get off this boring stuff. Tell me, how's you anger management going...?

Last edited by CloseTheBlastDo; 10-20-2003 at 09:30 PM.
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2003, 09:25 PM   #22
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Red face

Quote:
Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo
Anyway - let's get off this boring stuff. Tell me, how's you anger management going...?
Not too good.

Ahh but I wouldn't be me without my anger... The Dark side is all Powerful.. For everyone that thinks I'm mean and rude. I'm just RPing as a Sith Poster.....

I always wanted to tell someone they were "irrationally cranking their own happy bunny." I'm sorry, but you just walked right into that one....


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.

Last edited by Cosmos Jack; 10-20-2003 at 09:37 PM.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2003, 09:33 PM   #23
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
Quote:
For everyone that thinks I'm mean and rude. I'm just RPing as a Sith Poster.....
Ahh - well, that clears that up
...although you could have let me know we were RP'ing. I would have used Mind Trick:

CTBD:
We are just ants in a box

CJ:
We are just ants in a box

CTBD:
Good Sith

CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2003, 09:40 PM   #24
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo
Ahh - well, that clears that up
...although you could have let me know we were RP'ing. I would have used Mind Trick:

CTBD:
We are just ants in a box

CJ:
We are just ants in a box

CTBD:
Good Sith

Ahh if only it was that simple to change my point of view... We are not ants in a box.. We are people on a planet... and you are implying we're bugs in a small square box...


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2003, 09:42 PM   #25
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
Quote:
I always wanted to tell someone they were "irrationally cranking their own happy bunny." I'm sorry, but you just walked right into that one....


Yeah, good point. I'll give you that one...
...but just don't plagiarize me again - OK?
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2003, 09:45 PM   #26
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
Quote:
Ahh if only it was that simple to change my point of view... We are not ants in a box.. We are people on a planet... and you are implying we're bugs in a small square box...
Oh well, I guess humour can only go so far...

It's just an analogy. If you don't accept it as a fair analogy, then - well -fair enough. I haven't got the emotional energy to have an intellectial pissing contest. Especially with someone who's main interest is in the pissing part...

Time is infinite in a backwards direction. Whatever you say Jack. Consider your bunny cranked.

...man, those are great words for a song...

Last edited by CloseTheBlastDo; 10-20-2003 at 10:27 PM.
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2003, 10:54 PM   #27
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo
Oh well, I guess humour can only go so far...

It's just an analogy. If you don't accept it as a fair analogy, then - well -fair enough. I haven't got the emotional energy to have an intellectial pissing contest. Especially with someone who's main interest is in the pissing part...
Well I have been reading allot of watered down ideas lately. So after awhile I got go pee.....

Quote:
Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo
Tme is infinite in a backwards direction. Whatever you say Jack. Consider your bunny cranked.
Well I never said you had to agree with me.... Seeing how you are replying to that. I still don't think you get the idea of what I have said about it.. Maybe you really need to look over what I typed again. I'm really not thinking about time like you are thinking about time...

Quote:
Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo
...man, those are great words for a song...
Hmm no.


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2003, 11:12 PM   #28
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
Quote:
I'm really not thinking about time like you are thinking about time...
Time is whatever you want it to be in your head.
...or whatever the clever man says in his totally theoretical idea you've seen on TV.


No, hang on, I think I get it now...
*takes a drag*
Yeah man. Time is like - not finite - but - like - it's also not INFINITE man!
*takes a deeper drag*
Wow - it's just whatever you comprehend it to be! Wow, this is trippy.
F**king proof s**t. Why was I being so god damn square?!
...f**k man, where did I put the twinkies?


With that, I've just remembered that I have - like - 10,000 better things to do than agressively argue about totally theoretical ideas which a bull-headed random stranger on the internet.

So good day to you. I'm going to stop typing now, go outside, and enjoy the beauty of infinite time. Oh no - sorry, NOT infinite time. Whatever.

Have a good life. Feel free to believe whatever you like. And don't forget to pee...

Last edited by CloseTheBlastDo; 10-20-2003 at 11:40 PM.
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-21-2003, 01:14 AM   #29
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo
Time is whatever you want it to be in your head.
...or whatever the clever man says in his totally theoretical idea you've seen on TV.
Hmm where have you got your ideas from. What makes you more qualified than anyone else on here to discuses anything with anyone? I can't recall any original ideas from you just regurgitated crud like everyone else... My idea was part regurgitated crud and part original idea...

Sorry you don't like my original idea and are to busy bathing in regurgitated crud.

Quote:
Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo

No, hang on, I think I get it now...
*takes a drag*
Yeah man. Time is like - not finite - but - like - it's also not INFINITE man!
*takes a deeper drag*
Wow - it's just whatever you comprehend it to be! Wow, this is trippy.
F**king proof s**t. Why was I being so god damn square?!
...f**k man, where did I put the twinkies?
Lol nice to know you have experience with something. To bad it isn't thinking...

Quote:
Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo
With that, I've just remembered that I have - like - 10,000 better things to do than agressively argue about totally theoretical ideas which a bull-headed random stranger on the internet.
Well in that case I would suggest not posting anymore in any forum, because that is what you have been doing scene you started... Besides that you didn't argue anything with me....

Quote:
Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo
So good day to you. I'm going to stop typing now, go outside, and enjoy the beauty of infinite time. Oh no - sorry, NOT infinite time. Whatever.

Have a good life. Feel free to believe whatever you like. And don't forget to pee...
How totally irrational your post makes me feel like I'm at work. Do you have a treatment plan? I feel like you made it, because you don't understand what I'm saying and you are lashing out with irrational statements. I have noticed you get like this with anyone that doesn't see it your way say "Lukeskywalker1?"

I like the way you have totally bashed my idea and "me for it" in the most rudest way you can. I commend you "most rude of you.." Even more than myself. I'm not even that bad. At this moment I'm at a loss to explain why you acted out the way you did. Other than some kind of inferiority complex, maybe a little chemical dependence, poly substance abuse maybe. Whatever it may be.

After reading your post I got to go pee... You gave me a really watered down response. To bad it wasn't nonalcoholic. Before I do that Cpl Obvious "myself" must relinquish command to a far more qualified person.

At this time I crown you "King Irrational" have a glorious rule....


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-21-2003, 04:23 AM   #30
Homuncul
 
Homuncul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 383
Quote:
CTBDTCAB:
even though you admit instruments or senses CAN be falible, if the data we SEEMED to collect makes sense, and provides positive evidence towards rational theories, we have every right to see that as 'truth'.
even though I admit instruments, senses and especially our perception is faliable, if the data we seemed to collect brings more accurate explanation of the reality we live in, and provides proof (survives criticism, experimental testing optionally, has no unsatisfying things in it), we have every right to see that as truth.

Quote:
I would still admit the 'possibility' of error - no matter how small.
We can render any physical possibility in principle. What can stop us in principle to find this error. This is more close to practical issues, which I would like you agree we're not discussing. We're talking about principal things.

Quote:
I don't believe this is true though. The counter-argument is that God has succeded in covering his tracks well enough so that you are fooled into coming to the conclusion he does not exist!!
But as long as we can't see the way to put it somewhere, we won't have an unsatisfying problem of explanation. Let's say God decides to show himself and makes a miracle which interferes with our fundamental laws of physics. So at moment of his making miracle there is an anomaly to the world we live in. Some scientists who have seen the miracle would question it. If god would be so kind to repeat it, they would try to measure it and explain it in terms of our fundamental laws. If they fail, they'd have to alter their fundamental laws to fit this anomaly. Let's imagine that god repeats this miracle in loop in some place on earth. Non-altered laws would sound like (if it's not being able to be discribed with normal physics):"Everywhere these laws are true except miracle in earth location x,y,z". I guess you see a problem of this statement, it would be obvious that a better explanation of reality would be needed.

Now, we don't confirm to have encountered any anomalies to this moment, our fundamental understanding of reality are not disturbed by the concept of god. It doesn't impact us, it doesn't worth mentioning. So how can be god disproved? Don't know, it's just we'll have to alter our model of proof. How can we put god aside? Only with better explanation of reality without god, rather than with one (that's a disprove also if a problem solving mechanism of proof is taken in consideration). Bible doesn't explain god better than scientists can do (with all their evolutions, big bangs etc.)

Quote:
Infinity is also close to God in this respect. The concept of infinity, while not impossible to prove rationally - is DAMN DIFFICULT to prove rationally.
I don't know, maybe you're going too far in it. Infinity is an abstraction, and it has fixed amount of properties, as we invented them.

Quote:
I'm just RPing as a Sith Poster
Oh. And I was just thinking to put you in to my black list. Do you believe in woodoo? (don't answer, It's a threat... I mean joke )

CTBD vs Jack score:

5:8

Last edited by Homuncul; 10-23-2003 at 06:57 PM.
Homuncul is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-21-2003, 05:12 AM   #31
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally posted by Homuncul
Oh. And I was just thinking to put you in to my black list. Do you believe in woodoo? (don't answer, It's a threat... I mean joke )
Why would anyone ever want to black list me and I don't do woodoo.

Quote:
Originally posted by Homuncul
CTBD vs Jack score:

5:8
I WIN ! ! ! No nobody wins in a petty forum argument we all lose. We lost a peaceful thread to post our ideas on...


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-21-2003, 08:36 AM   #32
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
CJ,

Quote:
I commend you "most rude of you.." Even more than myself. I'm not even that bad.
...

heh - let's get a few things clear.
YOUR the one who started debating in an overly-aggressive manner at the drop of a hat - NOT me.

I guess H has accused me of going over the top a bit - especially with the length of posts etc. - and I accept that. But I wasn't aggressive until you intitated it.
You only need to look at me and Homonocul. We've disagreed on a lot of stuff. Even strongly. But it's always remained civil.
...and the insinuation that I have just dismissed H's arguments is absolute bull. ABSOLUTE. We've discussed our views, and actually, we've found, at least in some areas, they are closer than we've probably given credit for. Well, I'll let H speak for himself, but it seems that way to me

I may have got 'testy' with Luke, but we've been debating on and off for probably getting on to over 100 posts now - in a totally circular fashion.
It took a grand total of two! on a certain subject before you reduced it to mindless insult-fencing.
...no, in fact - scratch that. You had an attitude with me even before I realised I was even debating you!! lol

And anyway, it's a bit rich you trying to make a big deal of the way I've spoken to Luke. You were giving out FAR more flat-out insults than I was in the Christian thread. FAR more...

But anyway, I wasn't 'bashing' your ideas (at least not initially), I was just questioning them - which I have every right to do. There is a plain difference. If you can't see the difference, well I guess you wouldn't - apparently your an (LOL) 'angry sith' (LOL - ooooooooooo).

I think you'd prefer to debate against people who will roll over and believe any old crap, because you happen to mention the words 'relativity' and 'infinity' during your ramblings about hideously vague theorys - in exactly the same way Luke wants people to roll over and beleive whatever he says because he uses the words 'Bible' and 'Hell'.

Anyway - yes, by all means. I'm irrational.
This kind of claim, coming from the man who thinks time is both not finite and not INfinite at the same time, doesn't actually mean a hell of a lot though...

and btw - anything else which is NOT finite and NOT infinite? (Whatever in the holy name of f**k that means!!) Space? Matter? To be honest, it doesn't matter really, you can make up anything you like. It doesn't even have to make any sense - these are only theories after all. By all means, go wild.
...I'm sure you'll find someone gulliable to listen to you eventually...

Quote:
No nobody wins in a petty forum argument we all lose. We lost a peaceful thread to post our ideas on...
That's ONE thing we can agree on.

Quote:
At this time I crown you "King Irrational" have a glorious rule....
I can't beleive you've given up your reign without more of a fight - but hey, that's cool.
My first act as King is to tell all to crank their bunnies REALLY hard.
...except CJ, who has probably already tortured and skinned it in a fit of 'sith' (LOL) rage.

Last edited by CloseTheBlastDo; 10-21-2003 at 03:55 PM.
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-21-2003, 05:05 PM   #33
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
I thought you had 10,000 better things to do?

I won't respond to the mindless crud you posted above this line, because it is the same crud you have been saying the hole time. I will say this. I have stated several times I never expected you to agree with me. It wasn't very good of you to quote me from another page to make fun of what I said just, because you don't comprehend it. That was the 1st thing I saw when I popped on this thread to me it was rude... I have been more than nice to you, but that was the last straw.

The fact that you keep trying to make pointless little jokes "about my idea" just shows me how irrational and unintelligible of a debater you are... If you think I'm rude you should look in the mirror a little longer... All I had to do to get on your bad side was post a idea you don't understand.

Quote:
Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo
...I'm sure you'll find someone gulliable to listen to you eventually...
Maybe you will too....

Quote:
Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo
I can't beleive you've given up your reign without more of a fight - but hey, that's cool.
My first act as King is to tell all to crank their bunnies REALLY hard.
...except CJ, who has probably already tortured and skinned it in a fit of 'sith' (LOL) rage.
Well given this post I would just make you "GOD Irrational," but I don't believe in any gods and I really didn't give up anything. I deal in the obvious you deal in the Irrational so we are on 2 separate fields; however, you are far better at being irrational then I am at being obvious. Obviously Irrational......

Anyway thank you for stopping by and continuing the mindless insults. Time for you to go back to the 10,000 better things to do than debate with me or any other person on the forum right? Especially since you can't debate with me just make fun of. I don't really see any point...


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-21-2003, 11:55 PM   #34
Jubatus
 
Jubatus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In your head
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally posted by Homuncul
[B(I can hear Jub is recovering his body from eternal dust, training his finger muscles, taking his keyboard out of the closet and starts typing something hidius) [/B]
Hideous, eh?

First of all I have to say that I've lost a considerable part of my joy of posting in the Senate for reasons that shall remain politely unsaid. Secondly, I've caught a second, slightly different branch of the flu upon coming home for a weekend visit from the public school I'm attending, so my will to debate is thereby additionally lessened.

What I will point out (for the nth time it seems) is my taking offence from you, Homuncul, assuming you have refuted any or all of my arguments ever in the Senate; you havn't, but I know you well enough to assume that you yourself through misunderstandings and misinterpretations are convinced that you have done so.

So, I will ask you (for the nth time) to let it go, please. I also ask for your own sake, for the longer you keep at it the more ridiculous you'll appear, no offence.

I might return when I get better, I might not.


-]H-P[-Jubatus - All bow down to TROGDOR the BURNINATOR!

Ode to a

Hey, you there! What we count in numbers we lack in wit.
Hey, you there! I take orders from an imperial git.
Hey, you there! I can't shot for sh*t.
Hey, you there!....Is there a bottom to this pit?
Jubatus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-22-2003, 05:34 PM   #35
Master_Keralys
Forumite
 
Master_Keralys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Writing orchestral music.
Posts: 612
Angry sigh... Children, children, children.

No offense, but SHUT UP!!

This was intentionally created to be a rational, clearly though out thread.

Cosmos Jack, you're allowed to have your ideas about infinity, just as I am allowed to have mine about God creating the universe in a word. Just as C'jais likes the black-hole universe theory, just as CTBD believes (what the frag does he believe?).

And all of us can criticize each other's ideas and theories. That's what science is. Getting offended over it doesn't help.

CTBD: you're getting way too irritated for all this. I understand why, and I can even agree with some of what you're saying. But you're not being very rational. Ignore irrational arguments: don't post to them. And you made it worse by degenerating into the same thing he did.


Now, to get back to the original topic and drop the flaming (permanently, please )

Homuncul, you have some good points. However, my post earlier wasn't to say that you can't look outside the universe. Just that we lack the ability to do it right now. I also agree with CTBD about infinity. We can only sort of get a grasp on the idea. In contrast to infinity, though, God cannot be disproven. Proven is easier; that's just up to Him. But if He is omniscient and omnipotent, as most religions argue (let's please not get into that debate here ) then He could forever remain unseen by humanity.

As far as the concept of an oscillating universe goes, sorry Cosmos Jack, but what we know of physics rules that out. Even if the universe were to collapse back in on itself (which it doesn't look like it will) and if it were to somehow explode out again, this could never happen forever. Given the second law of thermodynamics, it would run out of usable energy, and eventually the explosion could not occur. Therefore, even if this would happen, and if like universes could occur (which is so improbable that from a mathematical perspective it's literally impossible), there would have to be a finite number of said universes.

Though I disagree with it, multiverse is a much more probable theory than infinite time. Eventually you run out of energy; there's no way around that as far as we can tell.


Master_Keralys is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-23-2003, 06:48 PM   #36
Homuncul
 
Homuncul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 383
Quote:
Jubatus:
So, I will ask you (for the nth time) to let it go, please. I also ask for your own sake, for the longer you keep at it the more ridiculous you'll appear, no offence.
I don't blame you for not wanting to discuss it circulary, but wasn't it always that way through out history that people didn't want to agree with each other? Sometimes they are stuck in moments when they think they have just defeated there enemies and can't move further. I had this emotion while talking to you, and for that I'm sorry. No one's perfect. I'm also sorry for all this sarcasm and irony directed toward you. I'd like you to know they were not ment to question or flaming your views but to bring your interest back to the forums. And full stop here

Quote:
What I will point out (for the nth time it seems) is my taking offence from you, Homuncul, assuming you have refuted any or all of my arguments ever in the Senate; you havn't, but I know you well enough to assume that you yourself through misunderstandings and misinterpretations are convinced that you have done so
No I didn't. As I said and will always say, we're guilty of our opinions. I hold my philosophy, you hold yours (of holding no true beliefs or whatever). And I agree with you and with agnostic thinking to a point (you know where this point is). if I'm misunderstanding agnosticism and it's not what I think, then dispute me. If you don't want to, then please do not ask me to let it go, coz you're no better than me then.

I was asked a question and I tryed to answer it. Is that bad? If these are my own misunderstandings and if we both speak the language of rationality, please discribe me my misconceptions and misunderstandings differently, because I couldn't understand them last time. And don't try to hide behind your "screaming" attitude towards christians or influenza (although I'm sorry to hear you are still ill). If you feel that I'm no match for you, then just tell me why? I'll sleep better knowing I'm that and that bad. If you feel that we're talking in the same words about different empirical matters, then at least point me to that.

Do I always have to become that serius! This is madness, there is nothing really to talk about. It's a shame of me and of you too.
Homuncul is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-23-2003, 07:24 PM   #37
Homuncul
 
Homuncul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 383
Quote:
Homuncul, you have some good points. However, my post earlier wasn't to say that you can't look outside the universe. Just that we lack the ability to do it right now.
I don't like talking about technical issues, coz it's a coming thing. Let's talk about principle of a thing. Can you agree that we are able to create a perfect quantum computer working by finite means, being able to calculate/render any phisically possible invironment. This theory is a major point of quantum computation, which now becomes more and more important. This is true and I can point to some philosophical and mathematical works on that issue. More on this, this theory relys on use of multiverse calculation, although by now it is more philosophical issue than mathematical. If the answer to my question is yes, than you'll probably one leg on the road of understanding there are really few things we can imagine of not being able to acomplish.

Quote:
Though I disagree with it, multiverse is a much more probable theory than infinite time.
Who said that? Aaahhhh... pleasure!

Homucul's dead girl + Multiverse = ... Love?...
Homuncul is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-23-2003, 10:08 PM   #38
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Re: sigh... Children, children, children.

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
I also agree with CTBD about infinity. We can only sort of get a grasp on the idea.
The odd thing about time is it only exists to humans, math only exists to humans, and science only exists to humans. None of these things would be here with out humans to invent them. The word infinite is a invention to describe time. Just like god is a invention. Science or God both would not exist without people to create them and use them. They are explanations and ways of getting answers.

How I described time and infinity isn't the way you are thinking about it. For my explanation stop thinking about time the way you have been brought up to believe. Don't even think about it as a true dimension of space. I'm looking at it as something that goes hand in hand with matter. There isn't one without the other. Time is just the measurement of how we and the universe around us change. I wish smoking weed "like CTBD is fond of" would help to explain it better, but I have never done drugs. So I don't know if it would and don't care to try.

None of you understand what I'm saying, because you are still stuck running around in a 10 foot circle. I made fun of CTBD analogy of how he sees people in the universe; though, that is pretty much on the dot with how people see themselves in the universe. The fact that we are stuck thinking inside a box is what is hindering us.. We are bred to think inside the box.. As in everything has a begining and a end.

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
As far as the concept of an oscillating universe goes, sorry Cosmos Jack, but what we know of physics rules that out.
"Sorry Mr. Columbus, but from what we know of the world if you sail out to far you will fall of the edge." "The sound barer will never be broken." "Rockets will never work in space, because combustion is impossible in a vacuum."

Like I said before Math and science are just tools. All tools can be used in the wrong way. Trusting math and science in the hands of a human is like trusting a jumbo jet in the hands of a chimp. "That's a little extrem." We haven't used them long enough to understand them totally and we are seeing this everyday..

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Even if the universe were to collapse back in on itself (which it doesn't look like it will) and if it were to somehow explode out again, this could never happen forever. Given the second law of thermodynamics, it would run out of usable energy, and eventually the explosion could not occur. Therefore, even if this would happen, and if like universes could occur (which is so improbable that from a mathematical perspective it's literally impossible), there would have to be a finite number of said universes.
Hmm Ok where does the particles of matter that make up this expended energy go? Do they just disappear? One thing you forgot about matter is you can't destroy it. It is a constant. All you can do is change it's composition. Lots of things do this Nuclear reactors, stars, and black holes even a camp fire. They all break down matter at the atomic or molecular level ripping the protons, neutrons, and electrons apart and combining them into something else.

If all this matter still exists and it will. The universe "if it collapsed in on itself" The equivalent to a supper massive proton size black hole. All the matter that changed would be smashed back together. Pressure also changes the composition of matter. A diamond is a good example. Cole is made of carbon so is a diamond.. Both are totally different and have different properties. Try cutting glass with a chunk of cole. Metamorphic rocks are rocks that have been changed to pressure and heat. At the end of their change they are not the same rocks. I would speculate that all matter can be changed with enough pressure and heat.. A star does that every second. Pressure unknown to us. "The kind that would come from all the matter in the universe compressed together." I think would cause massive changes...

Matter in any form is recyclable. As long as you have the basic building blocks you have anything you want. If you want water take Hydrogen, Oxygen, and put them together. If you don't have Oxygen. Take 8 electrones, 8 protones, and 8 neutrons and you have an oxygen atom. That is how the universe works.

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Though I disagree with it, multiverse is a much more probable theory than infinite time. Eventually you run out of energy; there's no way around that as far as we can tell.
The way I see it. You can either
(A) Believe that a god created the hole universe and has some purpose for all this. "A end all be all answer for everything."

(B) Believe that the universe and all "time" and "matter" began with the big bang. From witch nothing existed before. At the end. The the universe will be spread out thin and without form. All stars will burn out because all the neergy will be spent. And all the matter will drift into the void of unknown space forever, because time is only infinite forward not backward. "To bad god doesn't exist Someone needs to push stop and rewind? Because this is pointless.."

(C) Believe that our corner of the known universe is in a constant state of recycle. That after billions or trillions of years all the spent matter is collected by black holes. These black holes collapse into each other. The pressure from all the matter forms the black hole into a small spinning object the size of a proton. The matter at this state changes and becomes unsteady repeals itself outwards and the universe begins again new. "If god did exist he created a perfect machine no need to stop and rewind here.."

I will pull a Homuncul here and compare science to martial arts. There is no unifying all out Martial Art that does everything perfect. There are; however, hundreds of styles "Theories." All of them have strong points and week points. Like the theories on the creation, evolution, and destiny of the universe. A Universal Theory would be like a Universal Martial Art and end all be all perfect answer. There would be no questions. "This is what you do, how you do it, and it works for everything."

There is no Martial arts practitioner that can study all the best parts of all the arts and combine them. We can; however, study all the best parts of all the theories and work them together so that the universe can make since. I don't think all the theories are wrong I think they are only part of the answer. You must weed out the unlikely from the more likely.

100 years from now all the laws that are thrown around here will be proven false. Another best possible guess will be in place using a yet unknown form of math. No I'm not predicting the future just looking at the past. As we evolve so will how we look at the universe and what we use to do it.


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.

Last edited by Cosmos Jack; 10-23-2003 at 10:25 PM.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-24-2003, 03:45 PM   #39
Master_Keralys
Forumite
 
Master_Keralys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Writing orchestral music.
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Sorry Mr. Columbus, but from what we know of the world if you sail out to far you will fall of the edge." "The sound barer will never be broken." "Rockets will never work in space, because combustion is impossible in a vacuum."
None of these are relevant. At all whatsoever. The fact is that unless the universe is infinite (and I again ask how an infinite universe can be expanding), there is a finite amount of energy and matter available in the universe.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Hmm Ok where does the particles of matter that make up this expended energy go? Do they just disappear? One thing you forgot about matter is you can't destroy it. It is a constant. All you can do is change it's composition. Lots of things do this Nuclear reactors, stars, and black holes even a camp fire. They all break down matter at the atomic or molecular level ripping the protons, neutrons, and electrons apart and combining them into something else.

If all this matter still exists and it will. The universe "if it collapsed in on itself" The equivalent to a supper massive proton size black hole. All the matter that changed would be smashed back together. Pressure also changes the composition of matter. A diamond is a good example. Cole is made of carbon so is a diamond.. Both are totally different and have different properties. Try cutting glass with a chunk of cole. Metamorphic rocks are rocks that have been changed to pressure and heat. At the end of their change they are not the same rocks. I would speculate that all matter can be changed with enough pressure and heat.. A star does that every second. Pressure unknown to us. "The kind that would come from all the matter in the universe compressed together." I think would cause massive changes...

Matter in any form is recyclable. As long as you have the basic building blocks you have anything you want. If you want water take Hydrogen, Oxygen, and put them together. If you don't have Oxygen. Take 8 electrones, 8 protones, and 8 neutrons and you have an oxygen atom. That is how the universe works.
Okay, this is irrelevant. The problem I posed was that the universe would run out of usable energy. While there are similarities between matter and energy, eventually the universe's energy will all be converted to heat. No known process can use heat for power. I'm not saying there isn't one that we don't know about, but to claim that energy will simply be altered in form is to propose some unknown mechanism simply to support your theory.

Moreover, you comment about water is an absurdity . That's chemistry, pure and simple, and has nothing to do with energy. It's utterly irrelevant. And just because 8 electrons, 8 protons, and 8 neutrons makes oxygen doesn't mean that the energy of the universe can be infinitely recycled. Au contraire, all that we know of science says it can't.

And don't give me that crud about science and math being only tools. Duh. But you're ideas are founded on the same stuff. They may be only tools, but it's the only way we have to analyze the universe. Your claim is like saying that just because a hammer is only a tool makes it useless for pounding nails into wood. Moreover, the stuff the rest of us are talking about is firmly rooted in the best tools we have accessible. You have yet to do anything except be bitter or talk about how we don't understand the world. We all understand that, but you don't seem to think that it applies to you.

PLease give us some real, reasonable support for your ideas; I'm more than happy to listen to that. But his inconsistent and unsupported stuff you're giving us is difficult to stomach. If you have some science to show, use it, but don't just propose your own theory without any backing or credibilty whatsoever.


Master_Keralys is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-24-2003, 05:00 PM   #40
Jubatus
 
Jubatus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In your head
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally posted by Homuncul
I don't blame you for not wanting to discuss it circulary, but wasn't it always that way through out history that people didn't want to agree with each other? Sometimes they are stuck in moments when they think they have just defeated there enemies and can't move further. I had this emotion while talking to you, and for that I'm sorry. No one's perfect. I'm also sorry for all this sarcasm and irony directed toward you. I'd like you to know they were not ment to question or flaming your views but to bring your interest back to the forums. And full stop here.
Our 'Philosophy Revival' discussion certainly was circular due to misunderstandings and misinterpretations from both sides - I mean, we took it far! I never regarded the outcome as me having beat you nor vice versa, never. We both presented our cases to the best of our abilities and that was that.

I know you mean no real harm with your sarcasm and I trust you when you say you're just trying to get my interest piqued again, yet you know full well how futile I regard most of these debates; guess I just started taking myself serious enough when I said it . What makes me tick about your sarcastic prodding is how "outsiders" to our discussions might perceive it as being truth rather than sarcasm - that is my concern, vain as it is (guilty as charged).

Quote:
No I didn't. As I said and will always say, we're guilty of our opinions. I hold my philosophy, you hold yours (of holding no true beliefs or whatever). And I agree with you and with agnostic thinking to a point (you know where this point is). if I'm misunderstanding agnosticism and it's not what I think, then dispute me. If you don't want to, then please do not ask me to let it go, coz you're no better than me then.
By letting go, I don't mean for you to yield to my arguments, I simply mean obliging me in letting the matter rest. A humble request.

Quote:
I was asked a question and I tryed to answer it. Is that bad? If these are my own misunderstandings and if we both speak the language of rationality, please discribe me my misconceptions and misunderstandings differently, because I couldn't understand them last time. And don't try to hide behind your "screaming" attitude towards christians or influenza (although I'm sorry to hear you are still ill). If you feel that I'm no match for you, then just tell me why? I'll sleep better knowing I'm that and that bad. If you feel that we're talking in the same words about different empirical matters, then at least point me to that.
Sorry, but I've tried to explain and rephrase it so many times I care not to pick it up again. I trust you know what it's like to hold personal oppinions that you cannot truly, 100% relate to others, because doing so correctly would require the person to have a mindset virtually totally like your own.

I am certainly not hiding behind my attitude towards Christianity; I have fully explained how futile it is to rationally discuss against dogma, and I have furthermore implored the rational parties of the Senate to do as I and simply not get involved in such debates (I've followed CTBD's struggle, and I feel his pain). Hiding behind the flu? Ever tried having a serious case of the flu? Ever tried going through it twice over a few weeks? It ain't funny and it renders your mind rather numb.

Never stated that I feel superior to you, sorry if you got that impression anywhere along the way. I do not feel I have set you straight about anything. As painful as it is to admit in public, you're a worthy opponent despite being rather frustration-inducing (or maybe because of )

Quote:
Do I always have to become that serius! This is madness, there is nothing really to talk about. It's a shame of me and of you too.
Fret not, my russian comrade, as should be obvious from what I've written in this post I hold you in quite a favorable esteem

-----

As for now, I'll probably continue as I've done over these last (many) weeks; throw in a comment hither and thither when a topic interests me and avoid lengthy and tiresome discussions.

I am watching though....


-]H-P[-Jubatus - All bow down to TROGDOR the BURNINATOR!

Ode to a

Hey, you there! What we count in numbers we lack in wit.
Hey, you there! I take orders from an imperial git.
Hey, you there! I can't shot for sh*t.
Hey, you there!....Is there a bottom to this pit?
Jubatus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Origins and Possibilities for the Universe (not a creation/big bang debate)

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:25 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.