[quote]ephrem wrote:
Using the genetic equivalent of the Hubble telescope, researchers have peered into the distant past and witnessed an explosion of new genes that happened more than 3 billion years ago.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/dna-life-fossils/[/quote]
?
What’s the relation here?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
already tried that. Still tiny.[/quote]
[/quote]
What does that have to do with a singularity not being a black hole?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Using the genetic equivalent of the Hubble telescope, researchers have peered into the distant past and witnessed an explosion of new genes that happened more than 3 billion years ago.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/dna-life-fossils/[/quote]
My point exactly.
Nothing. Just thought it made a cool picture.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Nothing. Just thought it made a cool picture.[/quote]
It’s funny how nature does that. Is it possible that nature is scaled to infinity in both directions? could a quark be a universe and our universe be a quark in some larger reality? is there any real reason to think it’s limited in either direction?
It’s like the stoners might be right.
Well, that was kind of interesting to read some of… A thread that starts with talking about the concept of infinity turns into origins (or lack thereof) of the universe using science and logic…
An interesting thing to add maybe or else just a crazy idea (sorry if this was mentioned or discussed)… Science can’t prove negatives, only positives via what we observe, but there is no way to say something does not happen. We use our best “theories” based on evidence (which we must interpret) to conclude (make logical leaps) things about the universe.
It’s hard to say any of it (the above mentioned ideas and theories) is correct especially when using the present as evidence for the past. So, in truth we can’t know anything beyond what we ourselves experience and even this is sketchy, because we could just be losing it, right? But there must be some truth out there. I’m glad others are looking for it too.
I enjoyed reading everyone’s comments on things (though I didn’t read the whole thread).
How about the concept of semi-inifinity? It starts, but then goes on forever after that?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
If you’re cool with time dilation, why are you leery of the idea that time is malleable? Once you accept that concept, time is no longer a linear, progressive quantity and eternity isn’t so far fetched. [/quote]
None of that leads to a rational concept of infinity.[/quote]
Time dilation is hardly a rational concept. That doesn’t make it supernatural.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
If you’re cool with time dilation, why are you leery of the idea that time is malleable? Once you accept that concept, time is no longer a linear, progressive quantity and eternity isn’t so far fetched. [/quote]
None of that leads to a rational concept of infinity.[/quote]
Time dilation is hardly a rational concept. That doesn’t make it supernatural.
[/quote]
Yes it is a totally rational concept. There is nothing irrational about time dilation. It’s not intuitive, but it entirely logical and rational.
Irrational:
Mathematics .
a. (of a number) not capable of being expressed exactly as a ratio of two integers.
b. (of a function) not capable of being expressed exactly as a ratio of two polynomials.
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
How about the concept of semi-inifinity? It starts, but then goes on forever after that?
[/quote]
infinity divided by 2 is still infinity.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Nothing. Just thought it made a cool picture.[/quote]
It’s funny how nature does that. Is it possible that nature is scaled to infinity in both directions? could a quark be a universe and our universe be a quark in some larger reality? is there any real reason to think it’s limited in either direction?
It’s like the stoners might be right.[/quote]
Looking at the universe as a fractal? I often think about this (and not a stoner, but there are some smart stoners out there).
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
How about the concept of semi-inifinity? It starts, but then goes on forever after that?
[/quote]
That corresponds to the cardinality of the natural numbers 1, 2, … and is equal to the cardinality of the integers since we can order them as
0, -1, 1, -2, 2, …
Cardinal numbers describe the size of sets, for example 3 is the size of the set {1, 2, 3} and of the set {apples, oranges, pears}. Transfinite cardinals are larger than any finite cardinal. Examples include the cardinality of the natural numbers, which we call countable infinity, and the cardinality of the real numbers (decimals) which is strictly larger.
This, and much more, was discovered by mathematician Georg Cantor in the 19th century. It’s a mind-bending area of mathematics, and leads to some difficult set theory.
Now you’re just playing semantics. Care to explain time dilation as an exact expression of two integers/polynomials?
Are you saying the First Law of Thermodynamics is irrational? Or maybe it’s just supernatural?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Now you’re just playing semantics. Care to explain time dilation as an exact expression of two integers/polynomials?
Are you saying the First Law of Thermodynamics is irrational? Or maybe it’s just supernatural? [/quote]
Time dilation isn’t a number. Its a fact of the universe, like gravity or sunlight. It is expressed succinctly by specific equations describing its effect.
It is not like infinity.
It really sounds more like you don’t understand dilation or length contraction of relativity.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
How about the concept of semi-inifinity? It starts, but then goes on forever after that?
[/quote]
That corresponds to the cardinality of the natural numbers 1, 2, … and is equal to the cardinality of the integers since we can order them as
0, -1, 1, -2, 2, …
Cardinal numbers describe the size of sets, for example 3 is the size of the set {1, 2, 3} and of the set {apples, oranges, pears}. Transfinite cardinals are larger than any finite cardinal. Examples include the cardinality of the natural numbers, which we call countable infinity, and the cardinality of the real numbers (decimals) which is strictly larger.
This, and much more, was discovered by mathematician Georg Cantor in the 19th century. It’s a mind-bending area of mathematics, and leads to some difficult set theory.[/quote]
Yeah mind bending indeed as there are an infinite number of real numbers before we even get to 1.
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
How about the concept of semi-inifinity? It starts, but then goes on forever after that?
[/quote]
That corresponds to the cardinality of the natural numbers 1, 2, … and is equal to the cardinality of the integers since we can order them as
0, -1, 1, -2, 2, …
Cardinal numbers describe the size of sets, for example 3 is the size of the set {1, 2, 3} and of the set {apples, oranges, pears}. Transfinite cardinals are larger than any finite cardinal. Examples include the cardinality of the natural numbers, which we call countable infinity, and the cardinality of the real numbers (decimals) which is strictly larger.
This, and much more, was discovered by mathematician Georg Cantor in the 19th century. It’s a mind-bending area of mathematics, and leads to some difficult set theory.[/quote]
Yeah mind bending indeed as there are an infinite number of real numbers before we even get to 1.[/quote]
Yes, I’m douche and quoted myself, but I just thought of this, DoubleDuce you mentioned universes inside other universes indside other… This is fractal (self similarity on all scales) and numbers are the same way, as Rational Gaze just pointed out as is nearly everything in nature (though not perfectly so). It doesn’t seem so big a leap to look at the universe this way then, and it makes you wonder if there isn’t a whole different set of mathematics to deal with this that we haven’t conceived of yet that would help us better understand many of the phenomena we cannot currently.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Now you’re just playing semantics. Care to explain time dilation as an exact expression of two integers/polynomials?
Are you saying the First Law of Thermodynamics is irrational? Or maybe it’s just supernatural? [/quote]
Time dilation isn’t a number. Its a fact of the universe, like gravity or sunlight. It is expressed succinctly by specific equations describing its effect.
It is not like infinity.
It really sounds more like you don’t understand dilation or length contraction of relativity.[/quote]
The First Law of Thermodynamics isn’t a number either. It’s a fact of the universe, which states that matter/energy CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED.
If you want to talk about numerical infinity though, please explain the infinite number of subdivisions within a yardstick. Maybe that’s supernatural too?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Now you’re just playing semantics. Care to explain time dilation as an exact expression of two integers/polynomials?
Are you saying the First Law of Thermodynamics is irrational? Or maybe it’s just supernatural? [/quote]
Time dilation isn’t a number. Its a fact of the universe, like gravity or sunlight. It is expressed succinctly by specific equations describing its effect.
It is not like infinity.
It really sounds more like you don’t understand dilation or length contraction of relativity.[/quote]
The First Law of Thermodynamics isn’t a number either. It’s a fact of the universe, which states that matter/energy CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED.
If you want to talk about numerical infinity though, please explain the infinite number of subdivisions within a yardstick. Maybe that’s supernatural too?[/quote]
“The First Law of Thermodynamics isn’t a number either. It’s a fact of the universe, which states that matter/energy CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED.”
Bold mine. Yes, in the rules of the universe matter doesn’t seem to be able to be created or destroyed. Unfortunately that is distinct from a cause for the universe.
The yardstick thing is nonsense. yeah, there are an infinite number of infinitely small divisions in a yardstick. Neither of those are real things. what is your point?
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
It doesn’t seem so big a leap to look at the universe this way then, and it makes you wonder if there isn’t a whole different set of mathematics to deal with this that we haven’t conceived of yet that would help us better understand many of the phenomena we cannot currently.[/quote]
There is the notion of a mathematical multiverse where every universe that corresponds to a mathematical structure exists physically. This is what Max Tegmark calls a level 4 multiverse, in contrast to, say, a many-worlds multiverse where every universe obeys the same laws of physics.
Numbers aren’t real things, period. So why are you trying to restrict an explanation of the universe to numbers? Infinity may be something you have a hard time grasping, but that doesn’t make it supernatural. If matter and energy cannot be destroyed in this universe, it’s hardly a stretch to postulate that matter and energy cannot be destroyed in universes preceding this one, or that this universe has always existed.
And again, you are postulating a supernatural being that has always existed. If that is possible, at least admit that it’s possible energy and matter have always existed. Your assumption is less parsimonious than mine.
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< And again, you are postulating a supernatural being that has always existed. If that is possible, at least admit that it’s possible energy and matter have always existed. Your assumption is less parsimonious than mine.[/quote]It’s just things like this that demonstrate unequivocally that you never knew the God I know. I’ll get to your other post hopefully later.