Isn’t saying the universe is finite a bit of a misnomer? There’s a current boundary to the universe, but there’s no limit. Also, an infinite universe doesn’t imply an infinite amount of stars.
mindeffer,
that’s like rating charlie francis’ expertise as a sprint coach by how many donuts he eats.
what’s worse: being an asshole (someone who upsets people with his speech conduct) or a pussy (someone who gets pissed off by someone’s speech conduct)?
[quote]mindeffer01 wrote:
Pookie, I don’t know if it’s just a bad mood lately or what,[/quote]
No, I’ve been an asshole for most of my adult life.
[quote]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.[/quote]
You’ll have to get used to it. On the internet, whether it be on Usenet or on web based forum such as this one, sometime things don’t come across as intended or are misinterpreted.
Being so “thin-skinned” will have you angry and foaming at the mouth nearly continuously.
As for real life, considering that I’ve got about one hundred pounds on you, I’m pretty sure you’d go sulk in a corner and that my teeth would be quite unlikely to ever meet your fist.
Keyboard courage is another common trait on the internet. You’ll get laughed at for that too.
You misspelled “light-headed”…
Let’s be serious here. You mentioned “magnets” (you like’em) then the “butterfly effect” and then tried to drop the name of a scientist that you can’t even spell correctly.
You then waxed philosophical on non-sensical mumbo-jumbo about “polarization of the universe”, “particle alignments” and similar tripe. If you don’t want people to treat you like a moron, don’t conduct yourself as one.
I should probably have shown more maturity and simply ignored your drivel.
No, I sure don’t. I even have a T-Shirt that says “Universal Polarization: It’s a Theory, not a FACT!”
I’m the center of this universe,
the wind of time is blowing thru me,
and it’s all moving relative too me,
it’s all a figment of my mind,
in a world that I’ve designed,
I’m charged with cosmic energy,
has the world gone mad,
Or is it me?
whaddayathink of this…
the universe is expanding. it’s postulated that it may one day begin contracting and eventually make the Big Crunch. since the universe would become it’s opposite sorta (expansion become contraction), what if the physics would change as well. perhaps the universe would become neg-entropic (since it’s moving towards order, that is). the only way i could explain the possibility of this happening is that it would be as impossible to explain an existence governed by entropy to a being governed by neg-entropy as it would be to explain an existence governed by neg-entropy to a being governed by entropy.
anyone read “faster than the speed of light” by joao magueijo? cool book about an idea that the big bang and shortly thereafter the universe was so incredibly hot that the speed of light was actually much faster than it is now.
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
whaddayathink of this…
the universe is expanding. it’s postulated that it may one day begin contracting and eventually make the Big Crunch. since the universe would become it’s opposite sorta (expansion become contraction), what if the physics would change as well.[/quote]
The Big Crunch was to be caused by gravity that would, given the existence of enough mass, eventually slow down the expansion of the universe and start to pull everything back towards the origin.
There was, AFAIK, no reason to think that physical laws would be changed by that phenomenon.
All physical equations can be run in reverse without violating any conservation laws. So, maybe. It would certainly be an odd place to live; seeing chaos spontaneously organize itself.
There are asymmetries (matter/antimatter) and “arrows of time” which seem to indicate that while the equations are in theory reversible, time always flows in one way only. Hence, the safe bet is that a Big Crunch in progress would not change much of our experience, except that every galaxy would be seen as rushing towards one another (ie, the universe would be contracting instead of expanding).
I haven’t read the book; but the current Big Bang theory requires a “super-inflationary” period to explain the observed asymmetries and “lumpiness” of the universe. It is a point of contention, mainly because, as you point out, we have to “fudge” some constants like the speed of light to allow for that super-inflation to have occured. Constants, like their name suggests, should not have to change… 
[quote]Mr. Moose wrote:
I’m the center of this universe,
the wind of time is blowing thru me,
and it’s all moving relative too me,
it’s all a figment of my mind,
in a world that I’ve designed,
I’m charged with cosmic energy,
has the world gone mad,
Or is it me?[/quote]
Here’s an interesting question: Your “figment of my mind” quote reminds me of the movie “The Matrix”.
How does one individual know that he is not simply a brain in a bowl plugged in to a extremely sophisticated similator that shows him expected output from his brain’s nerve impulses?
It is theoritically possible for someone to map out all the possible nerve outputs from a human brain; and similarly map out all possible inputs thru the same or other nerves.
So the thought “I’ll scratch my nose” would result in the simulator sending data to your five senses to make you believe you raised your arm and that your index finger scratched your nose. You’d see it, feel it, hear the rustle of your shirt and smell your fingers if your previous thought was “my ass itches, I’ll scratch it.”, etc.
You might even say that some weird stuff that happens in Quantum theory, like the apparent non-happening of events unless there is an observer is simply an “optimization” applied to the simulator to avoid having to “simulate” parts of the world that no one sees. Save some CPU cycles and all that.
Even better, the “quanta” aspect of Quantum theory (ie, that energy, light, matter and even time) come in small discrete packets that are not further divisible (ie, there is not such thing as “half a photon”) is similar to the limits one would find on a digital rendering program. Eventually, you hit the maximum resolution possible for the simulator and you’d be unable to observe greater precision.
Is there an objective test or experiment that can be done to show that one is not a brain in in jar plugged in to a computer somewhere?
[quote]pookie wrote:
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.
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]
I’ll go back to something I said on another thread.
There is simply no evidence that 2+2=4.
It is a theory that has come to be accepted.
Just because most experiments, mind you tested with the information available to us now, have come up with a certain conclusion, that therefore it is so.
I am enjoying the thread, but don’t tell me anything is proven so. Not one thing in this world can be proven to be absolutely true.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Is there an objective test or experiment that can be done to show that one is not a brain in in jar plugged in to a computer somewhere?[/quote]
No. That’s the exact thought experiment that lead Descarte to proclaim Cogito ergo sum… I think therefore I am. That is the only thing absolutely certain in the face of radical skepticism.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Even better, the “quanta” aspect of Quantum theory (ie, that energy, light, matter and even time) come in small discrete packets that are not further divisible (ie, there is not such thing as “half a photon”) is similar to the limits one would find on a digital rendering program. Eventually, you hit the maximum resolution possible for the simulator and you’d be unable to observe greater precision.
[/quote]
Fractal based renderings have no limit to their resolution. Arguing from binary directly to physical phenomena skips several very important steps.
Also, as far as some of the spookier QM stuff, come on… a lot of that has been overhyped by Copenhagen fanatics, and these physicist-mystics have ignored other possible causes for the mysterious phenomena… phenomena that are sub-microscopic and known to be exceptionally difficult to create valid experimental conditions for.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
There is simply no evidence that 2+2=4.
It is a theory that has come to be accepted.
[/quote]
That’s absolutely not true. Addition is not theory, it’s a “given.” As I pointed out on the other thread, addition is axiomatic. By definition, two plus two equals four. Because the symbol “four” signifies the symbol “two” twice, or the symbol “one” four times. It’s sophistry to contend that it’s a theory.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Not one thing in this world can be proven to be absolutely true.[/quote]
One thing absolutely can: Cogito ergo sum.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
I’ll go back to something I said on another thread.
There is simply no evidence that 2+2=4.
It is a theory that has come to be accepted.[/quote]
Yikes. I won’t debate you on this… There is nothing theoritical about 2+2=4; we don’t get 4 by “convention” or “agreement”. You can argue all you want against it.
Correct. But there is no other “better” explanation available to us now. If a better one comes along, we’ll replace the old theory by the new one.
Simply rejecting outright everything you don’t agree with simply because you’d prefer it to be otherwise is not an option. At least, not if you wish to remain in the realm of science. If you prefer to reject science because it conflicts with deeply held beliefs, or “faith”, then it’s your prerogative.
Do note, however, that you enjoy daily the fruits of that science whenever you use a computer, listen to a CD, put food in your fridge, etc. Pretty much every domain, be it medecine, agriculture, travel, communications, etc. has benefited from the advances of science.
I’ll tell you that 2+2=4 is proven. Theories are not “proven” and generally are not (in the case of very complex one) ever expected to be. They simply explain reality with a high degree of accuracy and allow us to better understand the world we live in.
I do have one question though; a finite universe really seems to bother you, even if it is mind-blowingly large. Is there a particular reason why?
Hmmm…
This thread makes me wish I would have paid more attention in quantum mechanics! I just got bogged down with the differential calculus and that fucking Shroedinger equation! Eigenvalue what?
Here is an easy trick you guys can try and then for those of you who actually take the 10 minutes to do it, can tell me what force exactly is at work.
Take a thumb tack and a 2" square peice of aluminium foil. Fold the foil gently in half from one corner to the other then open and fold the other corners. This will make a little tent like shape, you then set the tack point up and set the aluminium foil sqare on the tack point. If you’re not a dillweed it should balance nicely. Now, put a scarf ofer your face so you cannot blow or exhale onto the foil. turn all fans and heat/air off so there is negligible air movement. Next put your finger or hand near the foil, like 2-6" from it and envision “energy” or an aura reaching out and pressing against one side of the foil. It will begin to spin, when you stop thinking about it it will stop, if you do it to the opposite side, it will spin the other way.
I have played with this a bit and actually gotten the sucker spinning quite fast. the first time I tried it it would only flutter a little after a minute or so. It takes quite a bit of concentration to actually get it spinning very good, but even if you don’t quite have your heart in it you should be able to make it flutter and or take a half spin or so.
And for the skeptics, I sat one time for over an hour watching it not move just to be sure there were no air currents moving it.
try it
V
[quote]nephorm wrote:
pookie wrote:
Is there an objective test or experiment that can be done to show that one is not a brain in in jar plugged in to a computer somewhere?
No. That’s the exact thought experiment that lead Descarte to proclaim Cogito ergo sum… I think therefore I am. That is the only thing absolutely certain in the face of radical skepticism.
[/quote]
back when i listened and read a Christian Evangelist’s, Ravi Zacharias, philosophies i came across a comment he made about “i think therefore i am.” he said that Descarte made a logical leap, and that it should read, “i think therefore thinking exists.”
now years later i still can’t, for the life of me, figure out what that’s supposed to mean or if it even means something different than “i think therefore i am.”
thoughts?
vegita’s experiment makes me think of wigi boards. never tried em, but curious. anything substantial or provable with these?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
There is simply no evidence that 2+2=4.
It is a theory that has come to be accepted.
That’s absolutely not true. Addition is not theory, it’s a “given.” As I pointed out on the other thread, addition is axiomatic. By definition, two plus two equals four. Because the symbol “four” signifies the symbol “two” twice, or the symbol “one” four times. It’s sophistry to contend that it’s a theory.
[/quote]
It may be sophistry, but my claim being that it isn’t proven, it’s a given–by definition if you prefer. Because it’s universally accepted as so means what?
That there can’t be another value asigned to the #4.
It’s off base, I know, and a poor example of my question. I don’t claim to be in your league in this discussion, but I want more info than because ‘pookie says’
If more people would offer to discuss rather than to ridicule one for his position, we could all use this as a learning experience. Nephorm, you are obviously quite versed in many advanced subjects, I certainly respect that. But not you or anyone else can tell me, without qualification , that the universe is finite. It may be all we know now, that I can accept.
Pookie, get ahold of yourself. I thought you were funny earlier, now you are just being arrogant and rude to those who pose meaningful questions to your assertations. To assume I must be talking about faith because I want you to clarify/prove some of your spoutings, is a bad debate strategy.
Never assume.
A strong point is the question of wether an intelligent presence created the universe.
If it didn’t, what could possibly lead to the creation of all this - rather than not creating anything, ever.
If it did, is it infinitely powerful and intelligent? Speaking from every day life, intelligence as we know it is confined to a region of space and constructed with matter.
The question then becomes, can intelligence exist in a state which requires no physical existence? If it’s not physical, then what is it?
If such intelligence created the universe, it’s reasonable to ask why. Intelligence doesn’t randomly create something - particularly something this complex - ‘just because’. Sure, it may not be bounded by our human qualities, but one would still expect a motive to exist. If intelligence creates randomly, and with no reason, then it becomes no different from a random sequence of events.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
To assume I must be talking about faith because I want you to clarify/prove some of your spoutings, is a bad debate strategy.
Never assume.
[/quote]
Ok, I won’t. I’d still like to know why a finite universe is so unacceptable to you? You really seem dead set against the idea, and I’m curious as to why.