[quote]wufwugy wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Looks like you guys just walked into pookie’s gym, and he’s giving lessons.
Keep 'em coming though–
lol…
you’re joking, right?
edit: im gonna call myself an idiot and retract the previous statement before i hurt myself…
i do have one qualm tho, im sure we don’t know that the universe is finite.[/quote]
I don’t know how we could.
Reading all this smart talk is making my brain hurt. =( I think we should ask Al Shades’ opinion on this, since he’s god and all.
[quote]diesel25 wrote:
<long argument with interesting points snipped… see above 
>
[/quote]
There are some interesting analogies between the organisation of a complex living being and our societies.
In my opinion, though, societies do not increase intelligence per se. Although regrouping our efforts allow us to achieves more than we could individually, the result of those group efforts are not incomprehensible by the individual members of the group, ie. the result does not show more intelligence than the most intelligent members of the group.
For example, take a research center with Nobel caliber scientist. A new proof or concept might be discovered or elaborated by a team of crack scientist. If that new concept was totally incomprehensible to any indivudual member of the team, you could claim that the team, as a group entity was “smarter” than its members; but that is not the case.
But if we take Einstein for example; none of his individual cells could understand relativity by itself. Not even a single neuron (brain cell) could understand the theory. In that way, the group organism “Einstein” is much smarter than his individual components.
[quote]diesel25 wrote:
My arugment, plain and simple is this:
This organization isn’t a casual event disconnected from everything else. It’s a pattern which governs life. Superior life forms will encompass a multitude of organizational levels and will have have aweareness of these levels, while the’cells’ which make them up will not necessarily have a clue what they’re part of.
[/quote]
You are making an argument based on the idea of emergent intelligence. The problem is that once one forms the argument in this way, it ceases to be interesting. An interesting form of the argument would be to posit that we are all forms of an emergent organism, but not that we are necessarily blind to that fact. This is untenable, however, because one would need to then show how this “organism” behaved as such, and how it would be differentiated from a similar system that did not have intelligence. Further, we’d have to see evidence of action on the part of the new organism that was alien from, and entirely unrelated to, our own human wills or even historically determined outcomes. As such, one would need to show that the whole was greater than the sum of its parts, and plainly so.
By arguing, however, that this emergent organism is unknowable to us, it is also irrelevant to us, and cannot be considered interesting. It does not intervene backwards in a direct way, any more than we, by eating, directly influence individual cells or even what we consider a collection of cells.
This doesn’t logically follow. Also, be careful with the word “infinite.”
Many people hate parts of themselves, often to the point where they want to cut those parts off. And yet, they still intend to survive…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Quantum issues, such as entanglement, lead to some pretty bizarre behaviors and concepts.[/quote]
Yes, but let’s not forget that Quantum Theory is not gospel It might be wrong in many places. Some of the bizarre behaviors predicted by QM might simply be defective or incomplete theory.
The fact that it works extremely well show that there is something there; but just like Newton’s classical model for the movement of the planets was refined and enhanced by Einstein’s Relativity (explaining why Mercury did not follow Newton’s predictions), QM might not be the end all of our knowledge of the infinitesimal. In fact, since QM and Relativy are both extremely good at predicting events in their respective spheres but don’t “mesh” with one another, we know that at least one and maybe both of the theories are incorrect or incomplete.
[quote]I know, I know, I’m just tossing random things out. However, consider the birth of our own universe, it happened. A whole lot of order was created somehow – obviously the potential undeniably exists.
We don’t know what brought that about, or whether or not it can happen again in some capacity.[/quote]
Exactly. We’re stuck inside our “sample of one”… And currently, all physics breaks down in the immediate moments following the Big Bang, so speculating is currently more of the domain of philosopher and theologians.
For those who wonder how we can know that the universe is finite; we simply work forward from the Big Bang some fifteen billion years ago. So, roughly, the universe would be a 30 billion light years diameter sphere.
Of course, if the Big Bang theory is wrong, then the estimate is also wrong.
Even so, there are also philosophical arguments against an infinite universe.
For example, let’s suppose an infinite universe, with stars and galaxies uniformly distributed throughout. Since you’ve got an infinite amount of stars, that would mean that any line you could trace from your eye into infinity would eventually encounter a star. Hence, the night sky should be bright white, every point being occupied by and infinite amount of stars.
Since that’s not the case, we deduce that the universe is not infinite. (This argument is called the “dark sky paradox”…)
[quote]vroom wrote:
The question is whether or not there is a path that allows recyling of matter from fusion end products to fusion inputs[/quote]
If I recall correctly, a large star will fuse all lighter elements down to iron. Large masses of iron will not fuse to heavier elements. So once all matter has been fused to iron, there are no more stars. The iron is then left to slowly disappear thru proton decay (believed to happen although it has never been experimentally observed.) Once all the iron is gone thru having its proton decay (in about 10^33 years), you’re pretty near the state of maximal entropy.
This theory is called the “heat death of the universe” in case you wanna Google for more details… it is an interesting mental exercise, if nothing else.
Interesting thread
I think it is much more about scale.
If you calculate the biggest thing we “know” like of edge of the universe and compare this to the smallest thing we “know” like superstrings, we lie remarkably in the middle. Do we exist with consciousness because we lie in the proper place between the infinitely big and the infinitely small?
the universe is finite, it has age and size and boundry. a finite amount of energy is contained herin.
[quote]phishdoc wrote:
Interesting thread
I think it is much more about scale.
If you calculate the biggest thing we “know” like of edge of the universe and compare this to the smallest thing we “know” like superstrings, we lie remarkably in the middle. Do we exist with consciousness because we lie in the proper place between the infinitely big and the infinitely small? [/quote]
I remeber a lecture that a Nobel Prize lauriate gave a bit back. He said that Chaos depends on scale. Basicaly he said that the smaller you study something the more chaos you will observe, but as you expand your view and look at a bigger and bigger picture the chaos will fall into a pattern of order.
i Thought it was interesting.
La’
Redsol1
Pookie, you keep bringing these things up as if they are known and the only possible outcome.
They are currently our best theories. They may or may not pan out exactly as conceived, just like the rest of our theories.
If the universe were to be finite and if matter undergoes proton decay and if black holes evaporate, then their could conceivably be means of replenishing fusable elements.
Turn it around a bit. Although we aren’t able to do things in a perfectly efficient manner, entropy is just a component in an equation. In return for entropy, something else is happening. Quite possibly the potential for reversal is there though we have no idea what it might be.
I’m aware of some of our current theories on these issues, but there really aren’t definitive answers right now. Just our current ideas based on our own interpretation of events around us.
Nothing wrong with that, but I don’t like the “cut and dried” view that comes out of our educational system. If we don’t leave room for questions and speculation it gets damned hard to develop new insights.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Pookie, you keep bringing these things up as if they are known and the only possible outcome.
[/quote]
There are only three options, vroom. 1) The universe is static, and will continue on indefinitely. We know that this is highly, highly unlikely. 2) The universe will expand to a certain point (we know that it’s expanding), and then snap back like a rubber band, leading to the Big Crunch. 3) The universe expands, and keeps expanding, until it runs out of “steam” (dark energy). Interestingly, it seems now that the universe is actually accellerating outwards.
What is not accounted for, however, is the spontaneous generation of new energy through much the same way that original matter would’ve appeared. IIRC, particles can be “generated” in a vacuum, as long as there are two of them, of opposite direction and opposite spin. The net matter and energy is therefore zero. If this is also the way that our universe was created, there should be a lot of antimatter detritus floating about “out there.”
Anyway, if an energy source of this kind were created/found… who knows. This is speculation on my part, I’m sure pookie would be able to give a better answer.
Although I did read about a fourth alternative to the end of the universe… that the universe could be forced to collapse unevenly, forcing an “infinitely” cold portion and an infinitely hot one, and creating a never-ending supply of energy. Only machines would be able to survive in those conditions, however.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Pookie, you keep bringing these things up as if they are known and the only possible outcome.[/quote]
That’s not the meaning I intended to convey.
You’re right about this. But theories in science must be backed up by observation and/or experiment. You can’t simply say “Well entropy must be reversible somehow” if you haven’t any idea or possible explanation of how that could be achieved. We’re still quite far from understanding everything, and I would agree that most of our current theories are incomplete; but I’ve never read anything anywhere that could lead us to currently believe that total entropy can be reduced. Science does not bandy the term “Law” lightly, but we still call it the “Second Law of Thermodynamics”…
“Conceivably” in the sense of “I wish…”.
It must be understood that the universe in a state of maximum entropy means that there is zero potential energy left. There simply is nothing available to produce energy of any kind. The universe would be uniformly distributed all over, completely cold (absolute zero)…
We’re very far from even slightly efficient…
Entropy is what you get when you use that “potential”. Max entropy = zero potential for anything…
The ultimate fate of the universe is not “known” at all. We have theories based on extrapolations from current observations. We aren’t even sure if the universe is closed, flat, or open yet. The “Heat-Death” is one plausible end IF a bunch of assumptions hold. There’s also the Big Crunch, the Big Rip and probably a dozen more without a Catchy Name™.
The times involved in most of these scenarios are astronomical and I tend to think that we’ve got more pressing problems to solve.
If anything comes out “cut and dried”; then it is a failing of the educational system. Science progresses because the theories get questioned, invalidated, revised and enhanced; or completely replaced in some instances. But we must also make sure that inquiries or questions remain “scientific” and not in the realm of complete fantasy.
To give a simpler analogy, someone might propose that there is some way in which 2+2 does not equal 4. Should that proposal be seriously considered and studied? How much grant money and supercomputing resources should we allow for that research project?
Keeping an open mind is important. Keeping a mind so open that the brain falls out is not.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
There are only three options, vroom.
[/quote]
After reading Pookie’s latest post, I realized I misspoke. There are certainly more than three options, as it depends on a lot of variables. I’m referring to a specific cosmological model which may or may not be correct, technically.
Pookie- You think I got my science from an Ashton Kutcher flick?
You don’t know the origin of the Chaos theory and you don’t know who Henri Ponicare was?
You throw in a little something about Einstien and his theories, but you don’t know anything about how they evolved or who helped him develope them.
You don’t know very much but you think a whole lot.
Why don’t you Google some info on the european Polytechnicians of the late nineteenth and early twenrieth centuries before you go looking more like an idiot than you already do.
The fact that you even made a statement like that shows that your knowledge is superficial at best, and you wield it like a moron.
While you are at it you might even find out about the developement and implementation of the metric system, and some very smart people who were also very human. Good role models.
p.s. I also like beef.High in iron.
[quote]miniross wrote:
the universe is finite, it has age and size and boundry. a finite amount of energy is contained herin.[/quote]
???How can you say this with any amount of certainty. There is no evidence that would prove this so. Let’s not forget these are all a bunch of theories being put forth, no absolutes.
Pookie,
I’d maintain that there are times and places for all types of thinking. I’m not trying to state that I actually have an alternative that will stand up under scrutiny.
I am, possibly, pointing out outcomes or alternatives that as of yet simply have not been ruled out. Also, and this one is a brain bender, we may or may not be limited to the current laws, as these laws appear to have been relaxed at least once.
If they weren’t relaxed, then indeed, everything cancels to a sum of zero via a manner such as described by nephorm. Isn’t it funny how much something there is in this nothing? If that isn’t enough to melt your noodle, what the hell is?
As for reversing entropy, who said it could operate in a “forward” fashion anyway? This is simply our observation based on classical physics. There are challenges awaiting classical physics which might eventually lead to new understandings… I don’t have to know it or prove it.
Talking about it, as long as my brain isn’t falling out of my head, is part of the process of figuring out what we don’t know and what types of things we should work towards knowing.
Anyhow, awesome thread!
[quote]mindeffer01 wrote:
Pookie- You think I got my science from an Ashton Kutcher flick?
You don’t know the origin of the Chaos theory and you don’t know who Henri Ponicare was?[/quote]
You mean Pointcarre’. I don’t know if you get your science education from movies; it just that since that movie came out I heard many, many people talk about the “butterfly effect” while they’ve got absolutely no idea what Chaos Theory is.
[quote]You throw in a little something about Einstien and his theories, but you don’t know anything about how they evolved or who helped him develope them.
You don’t know very much but you think a whole lot.[/quote]
Well thank you. I am quite aware that whatever knowledge I have is very small. But I do try to think about ideas and concepts and try to understand theories put forth by men much smarter than me. So you’d be right on both counts here.
I do google a lot; I’ve even bought and read books about some of those topics. I’ll admit that the extreme mental effort required to hold the book open and read the pages at the same time do tend to make me contort my face and drool a lot. That’s why I do it in private and then blowdry my books when I’m done. You’ll have to understand that some subtle nuance or an abstract concept might have escaped my limited capabilities. All that drool makes the long words blurry.
That’s why I consider myself extremely lucky to have come across such an educated and erudite being such as yourself. Surely a person of such overwhelming, no astonishing genius such as yourself will be up to the challenge of explaining where I’ve so miserable erred and set me straight.
It can only require but a smidging of your remarquable intellectual capacity to explain in common layman terms all those complex theories you’ve so easily mastered.
Really, I beg of you, abase yourself to enlightening the base rable who dare discuss Physics without your guiding light to show them the way thru the perilous darkness of ignorance.
The Metric System??? GASP!!! I’d rather not explore such advanced scientific concepts for fear of burning out what little working neurons I have.
Although Canada officially adopted the metric system when I was but a wee lad, I must say that I remain to this day completely mystified as to it’s mysterious workings. Something about powers of ten and a platinum cylinder? Cabbalistic runes, all of it I say!
I mean, I’ve only just learned that “people” can be “very human.” Many thanks for that kind nugget of wisdom.
Goes well with your magnets, I bet.
Pookie, I don’t know if it’s just a bad mood lately or what, but seriously- as it has been pointed out several times recently about courtesy on threads- If someone like you jumped into a conversation in real life with your attitude-
I would knock your fucking teeth right down your throat.
In my origional post I was trying to be a little whimsical, metaphysical, and light hearted.
But I guess you don’t like that kind of stuff. So mission acomplished asshole.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
How can you say this with any amount of certainty. There is no evidence that would prove this so. Let’s not forget these are all a bunch of theories being put forth, no absolutes.[/quote]
We can say this with a reasonable amount of certainty. “Reasonable” because many observations support the theory that the univers is, indeed, finite.
The scientific way to go about this is to propose experiments and/or predict observations. You could say “If the universe is infinite, we should observe X” if you don’t observe X, you must conclude that your premise is flawed, ie. the univsere is not infinite. You could also have a bad experiment that does not invalidate the premise because the experiment itself is flawed.
But when tens, hundreds and even thousands of experiments and observation support your initial premise, then it becomes accepted as “the prevailing theory”. It might not be the only one; in fact many domains in science have more than one theory that are considered possible “valid” because some observations back them up. From that, you try to refine and further develop the theory so that it explains more phenomenon or that you at least understand why some observation fail.
Quantum Mechanics is a good example of that. At the beginning of the century, many physicists were opposed to QM, because they found it to be too “counter intuitive”; too different from the macroscopic world we experience everyday. Einstein spent most of his last 30 years trying to invalidate QM. He proposed experiments to “disprove” QM, but the technology of the time did not allow these experiments to be tried in laboratory. Some of these experiments were finally tried in the 1980s, some 30 years after his death and it turns out that the outcome did support QM as a valid theory; so instead of disproving it, as was the goal, they strenghtened our “certainty” about it being a valid theory.
We should also be clear as to what a “theory” is, according to science. People often say stuff like “evolution is a theory, not a fact.” Which is correct, but it has to be understood that in science, a “theory”, especially one as well established as evolution is the closest you’ll ever get to “a fact.”
What people think “theory” means is actually called an “hypothesis” in science. Hypotheses are untested theories that must be tested and proven true or false; usually a large number of hypotheses will be proposed, and then tested to eventually build a comprehensive theory to explain this or that phenomenon. Most accepted theories, like Relativity or QM, have enormous amount of supporting evidence and very little or no counter examples. Others, like the Big Bang, have a lot more holes in them, but less than any other competing theories and are thus accepted as “the best current” theorie until something better comes along.
That’s why most scientist, if they had to bet their lives on whether the universe is finite or infinite would go for the “finite” option. There is simply no evidence to support the notion of an infinite universe.
[quote]mindeffer01 wrote:
Pookie, I don’t know if it’s just a bad mood lately or what, but seriously- as it has been pointed out several times recently about courtesy on threads- If someone like you jumped into a conversation in real life with your attitude-
I would knock your fucking teeth right down your throat.
In my origional post I was trying to be a little whimsical, metaphysical, and light hearted.
But I guess you don’t like that kind of stuff. So mission acomplished asshole.
[/quote]
Lol, I can hear him crying behind his computer.