Forces Of The Universe

Off Topic
121

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
For a long time people thought as you do about the role of analogy in uncovering the truth. After a lot of mistakes this got replaced with mathematics, and science was born. Analogy does play an important role in learning, however, and in explaining things. But it’s like a piece of climbing rope, you can only trust it if you have a good guide on the other end, pulling you along to where you need to go.[/quote]

And now, unfortunately, far too many people believe that everything can be explained by science, or that truth is exclusive to the scientific realm. I won’t complain too loudly about the diminished role of philosophy in modern discourse, but I will point out that science has its limits, and only by intelligently and thoughtfully acknowledging those limits may we avoid falling into the traps of historicism, relativism, etc.

122

[quote]nephorm wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
For a long time people thought as you do about the role of analogy in uncovering the truth. After a lot of mistakes this got replaced with mathematics, and science was born. Analogy does play an important role in learning, however, and in explaining things. But it’s like a piece of climbing rope, you can only trust it if you have a good guide on the other end, pulling you along to where you need to go.

And now, unfortunately, far too many people believe that everything can be explained by science, or that truth is exclusive to the scientific realm. I won’t complain too loudly about the diminished role of philosophy in modern discourse, but I will point out that science has its limits, and only by intelligently and thoughtfully acknowledging those limits may we avoid falling into the traps of historicism, relativism, etc.[/quote]

And yet I was called a radical skeptic, accused of offering sophistry arguments, then called a theist which rebuffed the radical skeptic, for making somewhat this same argument 2 pages ago.

Not arguing–somewhat agreeing–just summarizing. I know you will claim my arguments not purely philisophical in nature, but I say that’s a pretty broad brush.

123

I have thought about this premise some and it makes me very uncomfortable. OK i’m on your space ship traveling in as straight a line away from X as I can. If the theory is that I will end up back at x continuint in this line. There must be point Y where I am at the farthest possible distance away from X. This point then should theoretically be a point in which I can go in any direction and all will lead me back to X. While I can easily understand this concept whith regards to the outside of a shpere, I cannot fathom how this is possible when I can literally go in an infinate directions from any point. It would seem there would have to be some force acting on me in such that if I got to Y and instead of heading straight or back I went up, what is the reason for reaching that maximum distance and what force keeps one from getting further away? If I was at that point what would I see? would the light just bend around me or would it look exactly like the point X or as normal as the rest of the universe looks.

Maore questions later

V

124

ive got a book called Hyperspace by Michio Kaku. according to Kaku, hyperspace is the fifth dimension or the fourth spatial dimension; i think time is considered the actual fourth dimension.

imagine a two dimensional world. flatland if you will. flat creatures travel around on a flat surface and can see only flat objects (squares, circles, etc.) now imagine that we (three dimensional creatures) know of flatland. how would we interact with it? Kaku describes it as if i were to poke my three dimensional finger through flatland the flat creatures would see my finger as a two dimensional circle because they cannot comprehend three dimensions.

likewise, a hyperspace is the fourth spatial dimension that we (three dimensional creatures) cannot comprehend, although hyperspace is a very real thing.

Kaku described hyperspace as being like a bunch of spheres that create one hypersphere in the same fashion that a sphere could be considered a bunch of circles put together in a three dimensional fashion. or like how a cube is a bunch of squares put together in a three dimensional fashion.

to us, a hypercube would look like a cube within a cube. to flatlanders, a cube would look like a square within a square.

i think there’s a way to shine a flashlight through a transparent cube with opaque ridges onto a flat surface and the flat surface will show a square within a square. i haven’t tried this experiment…

125

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Good thread guys.

I’d just like to apologize to y’all though…

As soon as I die, all of you will cease to exist.

I will try to stay alive for as long as I can, it’s the least I can do.[/quote]

i realize that this is a joke, but i wanna look into it seriously.

for a while, i subscribed to the philosophy that when i die so will existence, at least as far as im concerned, that is. even though this philosophy has significant practical purposes, it completely disregards anything other than the complete absence of existence. i no longer believe this philosophy because it is based upon what i find to be a very unreal idea. the idea that something (that very word implies existence) cannot exist. the absense of existence could not be comprehended or explained because existence (and everything therein) is a positive manifestation, and in order to explain or comprehend non-existence we’d have to used the tools of existence. this would be like eating one’s self for sustenance.

the philosophy that this life is all i have is a very peculiar philosophy, a very isolated philosophy, and may very well be a new philosophy. as far as i can tell, zero religions or cultures have ever believed this; they’ve all realized that existence is a continuum and not just dependant on breathing and eating.

now, since existence is all that is, and death is, then death is an existence. since i like to analgoize so much i like to think of death like a burning fire. i put some wood in the fire and slowly but surely it begins to disappear, much like a rotting body. although, the wood actually isn’t disappearing. it is only taking on different form. it is taking on the form of the fire and becoming smoke and such. many people look at this as an isolated incidence and only with their eyes, and they rationalize that we all become “nothingness” just like the wood in the fire becomes “nothingness.”

i say, follow the wood and fire as it changes. in a very simplified fashion, the wood becomes smoke and rises to the sky and becomes cloud then rains and becomes river then oceans and mineralizes then plants and grows into wood.

thoughts?

126

[quote]Vegita wrote:
I have thought about this premise some and it makes me very uncomfortable. OK i’m on your space ship traveling in as straight a line away from X as I can. If the theory is that I will end up back at x continuint in this line. There must be point Y where I am at the farthest possible distance away from X. This point then should theoretically be a point in which I can go in any direction and all will lead me back to X. While I can easily understand this concept whith regards to the outside of a shpere, I cannot fathom how this is possible when I can literally go in an infinate directions from any point. It would seem there would have to be some force acting on me in such that if I got to Y and instead of heading straight or back I went up, what is the reason for reaching that maximum distance and what force keeps one from getting further away? If I was at that point what would I see? would the light just bend around me or would it look exactly like the point X or as normal as the rest of the universe looks.
[/quote]

Well, multi-dimensional geometry is not my strong subject, but I think yes, if the universe were not expanding all the time, there would be at least one place you could depart from in any direction and wind up at the earth in less time than it would take you to go all the way around universe in that direction.

However, the shape of our universe is changing all the time, and the earth is moving also, so there are a lot of complications on top of some relatively simple (!) multidimensional geometry. When using your FTL space ship, for example, you will want to set the warp drive so that you arrive back at the earth at about the same time you depart. Otherwise, the earth will be somewhere else than where it was when you started out, by the time you complete your grand tour of the universe.

The reason that this stuff (General Relativity and Quantum Physics) is so hard for anyone to grasp is, we can have no personal experience of it. Everything that happens is either on an unbelievably vast scale, or unbelievably tiny. These things don’t work the same as the kinds of human-scale things we’re used to. That is one reason why analogy breaks down. The things that happen are completely counter-intuitive. You have to stare at an equation to figure out what is going to happen. But we can see these same things happen in our instruments, so we know they are no joke. Best of all, the math describes our hypotheses very precisely, so we know exactly what is being tested when we make observations or perform experiments.

Anyway, yes, light travels in these curved paths too. The universe is curved in on itself, because its mass bends space-time around itself. When a ray of light passes very near a massive star, it is noticeably bent from a straight line by the star’s gravity. Actually, what you see is how space is bent in the area very close to that particular star. The light is always traveling straight from its point of view. The star’s gravity changed what ‘straight’ meant, and anyone farther away who was watching could see that this version of straight didn’t agree with their version anymore. They weren’t as close to the star, so they weren’t affected as strongly by its gravity.

So yes there is a force involved, though perhaps not exactly as you meant. Gravity, or any force that accelerates you, will change how space is shaped. That’s why they called this stuff ‘relativity’, because basically the theory says that how space looks to you depends on whether you’re being accelerated or not. What you see depends on your frame of reference.

But when going long distances in a “straight” line, over time it is the mass of the entire rest of the universe that controls what curve turns out to be straight for you. Since the universe is expanding and all that mass is flying apart from itself, “straight” is changing all the time and it’s unlikely that the path will ever close on itself exactly.

This is why gedanken experiments are nice - they are so much simpler than reality.

127

Come on, I never said that you were a radical skeptic… I specifically said that you could NOT be a radical skeptic because you are theistic.
I did say that one of your arguments was sophistry… perhaps I should’ve said specious, if that makes you feel any better. My argument with you wasn’t that you felt science was limited, but that the limits you posited for it were so stringent.

128

[quote]wufwugy wrote:

i wonder about this because back when i was Christian i used to get Kent Hovind Creation Science Evangelism material and he had a quarter million dollar offer to anybody who could prove any aspect of evolution to be true. it’s been a few years since ive heard of him, but im sure he’s still got the offer going.
[/quote]

I’ll offer 1/2 half million dollars - twice as much - to anyone who’ll prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the creationist theory.
Anything can be used,so you have plenty to work with. The caveat? It must stand against skeptics who must not be able to disprove your proof. Thus, while you have much room to work with, you have a double challenge:

Prove the creationist theory beyond reasonable doubt;
As part of the above, your whole theory must not be disproved by skeptics.

129

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
i realize that this is a joke, but i wanna look into it seriously.

for a while, i subscribed to the philosophy that when i die so will existence, at least as far as im concerned, that is. even though this philosophy has significant practical purposes, it completely disregards anything other than the complete absence of existence. i no longer believe this philosophy because it is based upon what i find to be a very unreal idea. the idea that something (that very word implies existence) cannot exist.

thoughts?[/quote]

Look at it this way: After you die will be just like before you were born.

Simple enough, no?

All the atoms that make up all the molecules that make up all the cells that make YOU will still exist; but your thinking self won’t.

130

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Vegita wrote:
I have thought about this premise some and it makes me very uncomfortable. OK i’m on your space ship traveling in as straight a line away from X as I can. If the theory is that I will end up back at x continuint in this line. There must be point Y where I am at the farthest possible distance away from X. This point then should theoretically be a point in which I can go in any direction and all will lead me back to X. While I can easily understand this concept whith regards to the outside of a shpere, I cannot fathom how this is possible when I can literally go in an infinate directions from any point. It would seem there would have to be some force acting on me in such that if I got to Y and instead of heading straight or back I went up, what is the reason for reaching that maximum distance and what force keeps one from getting further away?
[/quote]

I don’t believe it’s a force, but geometry which cause you to return to your original destination.

Downscale from our 3D world to a 2D world. Take a sphere and consider its surface as a 2D universe. It has several properties comparable to ours - namely, it would appear infinite,and light would travel indefinitely; Space would curve into a 3rd dimension; and, if you imagine some incognito force blowing the sphere outwards, then, voila - we have expansion of the universe.

You pose a very good question. Traveling in such a curved universe, you would eventually reach a point past which you can only get closer to your departure point. Well, if you think of our 2D model, that point would be that opposite to your departure point in the sphere. If you draw a line from departure to that point you are right: There is absolutely no way to go but closer to your departure point. You can then choose to go northeast, south, west - and you will still move closer to your departure point!

That raises very interesting questiong. Namely:

Assuming our model of a space which curves into a 4th dimension, and making an analogy with our 2D model, it would seem plausible to have a point in this universe, at which you can move in any direction and return to Earth.
IF this is so, you would then be able to point your powerful telescope and see that point of the universe regardless of the direction you point your telescope.
If you imagine there is a bright galaxy at that point, and imagine that point exists in a 3D model of our 2D sphere, then light emmitted by that galaxy would spread in every direction. If that galaxy happens to be exactly opposite to us in this spherical model, it will reach us at the same time, and at the same time look the same!!!

By the same token, any object appearing to be farther away that that point when looking north, would appear proportionately closer to us by looking south. However that object would not be seen if you pointed your telescope in any direction other those two.

Thus, we have a very practical method of determining the veracity of a model of the Universe which curves itself onto a fourth dimension. Clearly, however, it would be potentially extremely difficult. In a 2D universe, you have a mere 2 dimensions to control to point the telescope in the appropriate direction. In a 3D universe, you have an additional one - the z axis, if you will, or the ‘upwards-downwards’ dimension.

Very, very interesting things.

131

An interesting way of visualizing a fourth dimension comes from Carl Sagan in ‘Cosmos’. You won’t be visualizing the 4th dimension, but rather the shade of a 4D object as it hits a 3D surface.

Downscale back to our 2D universe. Imagine a box sitting a distance from a flat wall, and a light source behind the box. Imagine the box is preferably slanted at an angle, such that the shade from its top top also hits the wall.

Look at the wall - you will see a shade of the box, but one which does not discriminate its 3rd dimension. In other words, this shade blends two axes into one. The ‘rearwards-frontwards’ axis, if you will, is mixed with the ‘left-right’ axis. As such, rather than resembling a box, it resembles a very odd-shaped object. You could extrapolate this to a 4th dimension.

Carl Sagan was also very fond of his PlainLand squares. These squares were 2d beings which saw each other as lines. However, when an apple came by, all they saw was a contour of its bottom. when the apple raised the squares, they could see that they were squares - and they could see inside themselves.

Would we look strangely shaped in a fourth dimension?

132

[quote]nephorm wrote:

And now, unfortunately, far too many people believe that everything can be explained by science, or that truth is exclusive to the scientific realm. I won’t complain too loudly about the diminished role of philosophy in modern discourse, but I will point out that science has its limits, and only by intelligently and thoughtfully acknowledging those limits may we avoid falling into the traps of historicism, relativism, etc.[/quote]

Yes, well this is a lesson for philosophers, teachers and politicians you’re gving here. For example, it would have been nice if you could have warned those who cooked up social darwinism out of evolution. As for the scientists, anybody who’s publishing in peer-reviewed journals has at least a hazy idea of where the limits of science are.

Thought and consciousness aren’t so inaccessible to measurement anymore. In future we’ll be relying somewhat less on philosophers to understand the human condition, just as happened with understanding the universe at large. Once you’ve gotten the physics, what use is metaphysics? That’s progress for you. Philosophy however should still inform our ethics. Science is providing rich new problems for discussion among philosophers, as well as wiping out entire topics.

133

[quote]diesel25 wrote:

Would we look strangely shaped in a fourth dimension?[/quote]

The fourth dimension is time. Interpreting time as if it were a physical dimension, you’re this long skinny continuous flesh-colored thing that stretches from your birth to your death, a huge physical pathway sketched out in interstellar space. You’re twisted in this funny spiraling spiral that reflects all the gyrations of the galaxy, the sun, the earth and your own movements relative to the earth, added together. Anywhere along this thing that we take a three dimensional cross section, we get a little statue that’s shaped like you at that instant in time.

So I guess the question is, do you feel strangely shaped in three dimensions? If not, then you probably look perfectly normal in four dimensions, because that’s where you are right now.

134

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Philosophy however should still inform our ethics.
[/quote]

since science has made philosophy obsolete in some areas, why can’t we make it obsolete altogether and allow science to inform our ethics?

135

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
since science has made philosophy obsolete in some areas, why can’t we make it obsolete altogether and allow science to inform our ethics?[/quote]

Science does inform our ethics. Economics demonstrates that tariffs are threats to the common good, that babies are starting to become independent entities by the third trimester of pregnancy, that whales show scary signs of being intelligent, and other stuff that our ethics definitely takes notice of. If science ever finds out that cows are leading a rich internal life of the mind, it is probably all up for steak houses.

But science itself really doesn’t say much about our ideals as human beings, what kinds of lives we should aspire to, living amongst each other, or how to tell good or evil behavior when you see it. Yes certainly science can tell us about animals, and we are animals, and we must forgive ourselves the genuine needs of animals, but many of us also aspire to represent something better than that.

Philosophy is essentially a careful, millenia-long conversation about these matters and more, conducted according to certain rules (logic) that play a role analogous to the role played by mathematics in science.

I will say that out of all the thousands of years of carefully talking about good and evil, and saving up the history of errors in the conversation - like relativism and historicism - so that they aren’t repeated, as far as I know nobody seems to have come up with anything better than the Golden Rule.

136

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
since science has made philosophy obsolete in some areas, why can’t we make it obsolete altogether and allow science to inform our ethics?[/quote]

Because philosophy addresses the two most important questions with regard to our humanity:

  1. What is the best life?
  2. Quid sit deus? (What might God be?)

These are questions that science will never answer.

137

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
as far as I know nobody seems to have come up with anything better than the Golden Rule.[/quote]

How about Plato’s: “Mind your own business”

138

[quote]nephorm wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
as far as I know nobody seems to have come up with anything better than the Golden Rule.

How about Plato’s: “Mind your own business”
[/quote]

Not even close. Warriors know that minding your own business is not always the correct course. To put it another way, what constitutes ‘your own business’ is a bit vague. In the end, minding your own business is just one of the many things we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Even the GR has its limits. The only way entirely out of error is to forswear duality altogether.

139

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Not even close.[/quote]

Lucky for me I wasn’t being entirely serious. But when you say nothing better has been determined, do you mean in terms of universal applicability?

I could argue, for example, that the Categorical Imperative is at least equally as morally sound as the Golden Rule. However, either guide will break down in the specific.

140

[quote]diesel25 wrote:
wufwugy wrote:

i wonder about this because back when i was Christian i used to get Kent Hovind Creation Science Evangelism material and he had a quarter million dollar offer to anybody who could prove any aspect of evolution to be true. it’s been a few years since ive heard of him, but im sure he’s still got the offer going.

I’ll offer 1/2 half million dollars - twice as much - to anyone who’ll prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the creationist theory.
Anything can be used,so you have plenty to work with. The caveat? It must stand against skeptics who must not be able to disprove your proof. Thus, while you have much room to work with, you have a double challenge:

Prove the creationist theory beyond reasonable doubt;
As part of the above, your whole theory must not be disproved by skeptics.[/quote]

It can’t be proven but if you don’t think anything matters in this life WRT a bigger picture or an afterlife, why not just give me the 500K as a statement of how much this whole life means little to you in the scheme of things. Then if you have another 500K we can go to mexico or something and party hard until we die a premature drug and alcohol laden death. I’m Game.

V