[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Complexity is not evidence for creation or a creator.
[/quote]
I don’t think that was the point. The point was more that given how little we know about the universe, and given the insufficiency of human intellect to comprehend the whole, it is vain to suggest that we are able to definitively answer the question of God.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Short on content, but I will excuse it because she is freaking hot.
Although, calling herself “Girl Einstein” is a turnoff.[/quote]
I thought a person throwing the name “Einstein” into their nickname would at least show a semblance of intelligence… That girl sounded a high school freshman reading cue cards.
I fully support the endeavor she is undertaking(Finding the grand unified theory), but judging from that small representation of her personality I wont be looking in the literature for any of her papers any time soon.
I usually find smart chicks super hot, but that girl started at an 8 and ended up a 6 by the time the video was over.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
Complexity is not evidence for creation or a creator.
I don’t think that was the point. The point was more that given how little we know about the universe, and given the insufficiency of human intellect to comprehend the whole, it is vain to suggest that we are able to definitively answer the question of God.[/quote]
Agreed… And that is why atheist, and certainly scientist(even Richard Dawkins), do not profess to KNOW that there is no God, but rather lack belief in it. Atheism is not a claim about knowledge(thats gnosticism), and typically only religious people are the ones arrogant enough to claim 100% knowledge of Gods existence.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
I usually find smart chicks super hot, but that girl started at an 8 and ended up a 6 by the time the video was over.[/quote]
I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, and assume that she really is a student at CalTech, and that she is intelligent, but that this was a poorly thought-out presentation.
She does lose points for self-awareness; I would never distribute a video of myself purporting to teach an advanced subject unless I had at least run the video by some peers to make sure that I was conveying information reasonably well and that I didn’t sound/look like an idiot.
Read Hyperspace by Michio Kaku.
My friend’s college roommate is dating Edward Witten’s daughter (small world).
So let me get this straight. They are saying that everything, every possibility boils down to a single, indiscriminate point that has no size or shape? Every single act, every single possible act, every reaction, laws of physics completely changed comes down to a single freaking point?
If we understand that point, we understand everything? An infinite infinites?
I think my brain just exploaded.
[quote]hoosegow wrote:
So let me get this straight. They are saying that everything, every possibility boils down to a single, indiscriminate point that has no size or shape?
Every single act, every single possible act, every reaction, laws of physics completely changed comes down to a single freaking point? If we understand that point, we understand everything? An infinite infinites?
I think my brain just exploaded. [/quote]
A “point” can be misleading. Look up at the sky…you see lots of points…they’re stars. However, the closer you get the more you realize that a “point” doesn’t give it justice to what it truly is.
If anything, once you realize it’s a huge ball of fire with rocks rotating around it you’ll quickly discard the idea of it being a point, because that concept will not help you understand the system.
Conceptually, they reduce the universe down to a single point, but to say that understanding that point will allow you to understand the universe is like saying understanding that point in the night sky will help you understand a solar system. It’s not that simple…you have to get up and close and study the system itself.
[quote]hoosegow wrote:
So let me get this straight. They are saying that everything, every possibility boils down to a single, indiscriminate point that has no size or shape? Every single act, every single possible act, every reaction, laws of physics completely changed comes down to a single freaking point? If we understand that point, we understand everything? An infinite infinites?
I think my brain just exploaded. [/quote]
No, it’s just that they need to be able to represent ‘something’ with ‘something’ simple.
A point in space, is best defined as a ‘point’. Two points make a line (1 dimension), another point off that ‘line’ define a surface (or plane, or ‘shape’. Another point off that plane make a volume (or a ‘space’). Well, that covers all we experience (length width height), or 3-d.
Time is a ‘dimension’ we experience - but we don’t have the ability to ‘travel’ through time like we do through the three physical dimensions. We only get the ‘linear’ path - time marches on.
Other ‘dimensions’ they talk about - especially when they start talking about the ‘point’ part that does sound freaky, is a simplification just to cut down on all the ‘what ifs’ that you’d have to think of.
When they started talking about the 5th dimension and higher, the author was just taking a broad stroke to keep it as simple as you could with a subject like that.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
10D is a useful abstraction but of little practicality since we can’t experience outside of 4D.
Let me introduce you to your intro quantum TA for this semester.
http://revver.com/video/265926/string-theory-rox/
Too bad she quotes Brian Green.
wtf
[/quote]
She has a gears of war t shirt on by the looks of it.
I’d hit it.
Also, for those just getting into the idea, the reason there are 11, and not 100 or 29 or any other number, is because that is where the math seems to lead. Although I think some people believe it to be 21.
Physicists will often figure out the math first, THEN test the experiment, a la Einsteins relativity. In fact, Einstein was so sure his math was correct that when asked what if the experimental data came back and didnt show him correct, he would “feel sorry for the dear Lord - the theory is correct.”
[quote]hoosegow wrote:
So let me get this straight. They are saying that everything, every possibility boils down to a single, indiscriminate point that has no size or shape? Every single act, every single possible act, every reaction, laws of physics completely changed comes down to a single freaking point?
If we understand that point, we understand everything? An infinite infinites?
I think my brain just exploaded. [/quote]
You’d have to be God to fully comprehend this.
SO, I want to see if I can help out a lil bit here.
In the case that they just gave, of ‘visualizing’ the 10th dimension…these are all based on what we experience: physical dimensions and time, all timelines, all universes that could have happened on all those timelines, all universes that could have existed, and their timelines, and all states of all of 'em, yada yada.
But folks that deal with things like databases and other things like that - HECK, even nutrition and dieting - deal with this ‘non-visualizable’ stuff.
Think of this:
You could define your meals by "calories, grams of ‘food’, protein, carbohydrates, fat, cooking process, etc.
You could imagine taking all your meals over the last year and plotting them out. Well, you could imagine a graph of total grams of ‘food’ vs protein content…and that’d be a line of some sort. Now add another, and you can imagine one of those graphs that show it like a surface - a 3-d ‘mountain view’ of how that varied over the year.
Now you can’t ‘graph’ what your macronutrients over the year would look like, but you CAN imagine how there would be ways to take ‘slices’ of those data points, and mentally overlay them, right?
Like, "I see that as my protein comsumption increased, and my carb and fat decreased, there was an increase in the number of calories and grams of food eaten but a loss in bodyfat over that time’. You just can’t see it all at once - you have to hold something constant - like, let’s say, the date, or something like that.
Now, either I just gave a working analogy, or confused the heck outta folks even more.
[quote]LightsOutLuthor wrote:
SO, I want to see if I can help out a lil bit here.
In the case that they just gave, of ‘visualizing’ the 10th dimension…these are all based on what we experience: physical dimensions and time, all timelines, all universes that could have happened on all those timelines, all universes that could have existed, and their timelines, and all states of all of 'em, yada yada.
But folks that deal with things like databases and other things like that - HECK, even nutrition and dieting - deal with this ‘non-visualizable’ stuff.
Think of this:
You could define your meals by "calories, grams of ‘food’, protein, carbohydrates, fat, cooking process, etc.
You could imagine taking all your meals over the last year and plotting them out. Well, you could imagine a graph of total grams of ‘food’ vs protein content…and that’d be a line of some sort. Now add another, and you can imagine one of those graphs that show it like a surface - a 3-d ‘mountain view’ of how that varied over the year.
Now you can’t ‘graph’ what your macronutrients over the year would look like, but you CAN imagine how there would be ways to take ‘slices’ of those data points, and mentally overlay them, right?
Like, "I see that as my protein comsumption increased, and my carb and fat decreased, there was an increase in the number of calories and grams of food eaten but a loss in bodyfat over that time’. You just can’t see it all at once - you have to hold something constant - like, let’s say, the date, or something like that.
Now, either I just gave a working analogy, or confused the heck outta folks even more.[/quote]
It can go either way.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Also, for those just getting into the idea, the reason there are 11, and not 100 or 29 or any other number, is because that is where the math seems to lead. Although I think some people believe it to be 21.
[/quote]
42
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
Also, for those just getting into the idea, the reason there are 11, and not 100 or 29 or any other number, is because that is where the math seems to lead. Although I think some people believe it to be 21.
42[/quote]
Damnit, i was just about to post that.
Basically the 10th dimension is infinity in every sense of the word. An infinite amount of universes, people, possibilities.
By the way, beyond the 4th dimension, things are incredibly simplified. I cant even begin to image to what point.
The oddest thing, imo, is our own existence. Can you remember when you were born? How you suddenly came into awareness out of nowhere?
Where does it start? And how can something start out of nothing?
Infinity is such an impossible concept that i think it is the only thing we will never understand.
For example, the number infinity exists between 0 and 1.
Think about it.
You can have 1.999999 and the 9s keep going until infinity. And yet, you can bridge that gap from 0 to 1. So it is both infinity and not.
What a world.
If you do a search for a video by Richard Dawkins called “Queerer than we can imagine” … Its a pretty mind boggling video that explains that not only is the universe stranger than we DO imagine, its stranger than we CAN imagine because our evolution leads us to understand the world as we experience it (3 dimensions, slow moving, solid things are solid)
Great video.
Hmm… It seems like we’re 4D creatures. I wonder what 5D creatures are like.
It took me years to figure this out. From the age of 11 to the age of 13 this nearly destroyed my adolescence.
It’s a mind state really.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
Complexity is not evidence for creation or a creator.
I don’t think that was the point. The point was more that given how little we know about the universe, and given the insufficiency of human intellect to comprehend the whole, it is vain to suggest that we are able to definitively answer the question of God.
Agreed… And that is why atheist, and certainly scientist(even Richard Dawkins), do not profess to KNOW that there is no God, but rather lack belief in it. Atheism is not a claim about knowledge(thats gnosticism), and typically only religious people are the ones arrogant enough to claim 100% knowledge of Gods existence.
[/quote]
I think you’re wrong - especially given your citation of Mr. Dawkins.
An atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
The definition you’ve given is for an agnostic…one that doesn’t have the gnosis to make the decision.
And while you’re throwing out generalizations about groups of people, typically atheists are the ones that will say that RELIGIOUS people, or those that believe, are 100% wrong that there IS a God.
And to reply further, I’ve never said that complexity defines the need for a creator…as someone else stated, my point is that, if you have a universe that theories like this can MAKE sense and fit in a logical schema, then my belief in a God is not illogical as so many ‘atheists’ have claimed it is.
My proof of the illogical nature of their claim that I’M illogical is that there is FAR more complexity to this universe than humanity may EVER be able to comprehend, so being able to make the 100% assertion that there is no God (admit it or not, you KNOW most atheists are as adamant about that point) is wrong.
But I’m not saying you’re in that group, any more than I hope you’re assuming I’m some bumpkin Christian that believes just “cuz”.
[quote]LightsOutLuthor wrote:
I think you’re wrong - especially given your citation of Mr. Dawkins.
An atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.[/quote]
My citation of Dawkins was well warranted, given that he himself on a scale of certainty from 0-7 stated he was a 6.9. Every good scientist knows that you can never prove anything with 100% certainty.
I’ll clarify again for you: Theism is a claim about belief, specifically it is the belief in gods or God. If one is a Theist, one believes in the existence of God. Therefore Atheism is the lack of belief in gods or a God.
Gnosticism in a knowledge claim. If one is a gnostic, one claims to know whether or not God exists(it actually applies to other things as well, but for this discussion we’ll stick to God). If one is agnostic, one claims that the truth cannot be known about the issue.
It is possible to be an gnostic atheist(I do not believe because I know there ist), or an agnostic atheist(I do not believe, not do I think it can be known), or even an agnostic theist(I do not know, but I still believe)… But religious people must be gnostic theists, in part because they claim to follow the word of God.
This misses the entire point of what I said, which was that atheist in general do not claim to KNOW that God does not exist, but simply lack belief in it(the very definition of Atheism). While religions, by their very nature, claim absolute certainty. All religious followers(not theist) MUST claim, without a shadow of a doubt, that there is a God.
[quote]And to reply further, I’ve never said that complexity defines the need for a creator…as someone else stated, my point is that, if you have a universe that theories like this can MAKE sense and fit in a logical schema, then my belief in a God is not illogical as so many ‘atheists’ have claimed it is.
My proof of the illogical nature of their claim that I’M illogical is that there is FAR more complexity to this universe than humanity may EVER be able to comprehend, so being able to make the 100% assertion that there is no God (admit it or not, you KNOW most atheists are as adamant about that point) is wrong.[/quote]
I just dont get that leap of “logic”… The universe is very complex, therefore my belief in God is justified. Why does complexity justify God? Of course being able to make the claim that there is no God with 100% certainty is false, and I typically only see novice atheists make such a claim. When an atheist says the phrase “There is no God” it is implied that he/she is saying “I am as certain as possible that there is no God.” more often than not. to claim 100% certainty is foolish.[quote]
But I’m not saying you’re in that group, any more than I hope you’re assuming I’m some bumpkin Christian that believes just “cuz”.
[/quote]
I havent seen any indicators that you belong to any religious group in particular, only that you are theistic. I just find it interesting that one can look at the issue(and indeed every issue) and think that God is necessary to describe everything in the universe.
If you are in fact a Christian, I hope that you have at least read the bible and understand the many implications that go along with it(stoning unruly children, silent women in churches, condoned rape and mass murder), along with the denial of many scientific facts.