Is the universe a contingent 'being'?

[Moonstruck888]

Simple answer; it does not.

Wrong answer.

No material thing that we have ever encountered requires an infinite amount of anything to create, destroy or manipulate.

We have never encountered a free Quark, and never will.

Either it is possible to seperate Quarks, or it is not possible to seperate Quarks; if a Quark is seperable, then it is seperable by some force that is less than infinite; for an infinite cannot exist in actuality, as it is a concept and not a reality; which cannot be constituted by finite elements or individuals.

It is not possible.

I only vaguelly know what a Quark is, but I can tell immediatly that the idea that an infinite amount of energy is required to seperate them is a fallacy.

The vagueness of your knowledge of Quarks is coming through loud and clear in a pristine five by five signal. You cannot answer my question. You can’t be blamed. No human could in anything but qualitative abstract theoretical terms that really don’t present any meaningful epiphany.

 

[JohnDamian]

It is not possible.

As I said. It is either possible, or it is not possible.

However, to arbitrarily pull a figure from thin air and say “oh, it takes an infinite amount of energy” is absurd and ridiculous.

A is either possible or A is not possible.
If A is not possible it means that A is not possible.
That means A is not possible, even if “infinite energy” was there.

You asked:

why it takes an infinite amount of energy to seperate two Quarks.

And I adequatly demonstrated that your question is invalid.

You said

Wrong answer.

My answer was that “it does not” take an infinite amount of energy to seperate a Quark because either;

1. A Quark is inseperable
2. A Quark is seperable, and requires less than infinite energy

Option 3; A Quark is seperable, and requires infinite energy. is absurd.

Now, being objective and not really knowing what a Quark is, I presented you with two logically sensible answers, both of which came to the conclusion that “it does not” take an infinite amount of energy to seperate Quarks.

 

[Moonstruck888]

As I said. It is either possible, or it is not possible.

And as I said, I can narrow that for you. it’s not possible.

However, to arbitrarily pull a figure from thin air and say “oh, it takes an infinite amount of energy” is absurd and ridiculous.

The figure is not arbitrary, nor rhetorical. It is an inescapable implication of current QCD theory.

Do some research on gluons and then get back to me. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Why don’t you just admit that you can’t answer my question?

A is either possible or A is not possible.
If A is not possible it means that A is not possible.
That means A is not possible, even if “infinite energy” was there.

Or A is not possible because there is no amount of energy can seperate two Quarks.

And I erroneously demonstrated that your question is invalid.

Fixed

My answer was that “it does not” take an infinite amount of energy to seperate a Quark because either;

1. A Quark is inseperable
2. A Quark is seperable, and requires less than infinite energy

I refer you to the third way that I detailed above.

Now, being objective and not really knowing what a Quark is, I presented you with two logically sensible answers, both of which came to the conclusion that “it does not” take an infinite amount of energy to seperate Quarks.

If you were being objective, you would have found out what a Quark is before you tried to be definitive about a construct that you admit you know nothing about. You do not understand Quarks, ergo, you do not fully understand the nature of the Universe.

 

[JohnDamian]

And as I said, I can narrow that for you. it’s not possible.

That’s fine.

The figure is not arbitrary, nor rhetorical. It is an inescapable implication of current QCD theory.

You said “WHY does it take an infinite amount of energy”… and then you said it is impossible.

It cannot both be impossible, and also possible with infinite energy. Your question is ridiculous.

Or A is not possible because there is no amount of energy can seperate two Quarks.

Why it is not possible is irrelevant. It is either possible or impossible, you are saying it is both.

If you were being objective, you would have found out what a Quark is before you tried to be definitive about a construct that you admit you know nothing about. You do not understand Quarks, ergo, you do not fully understand the nature of the Universe.

Knowing what a Quark is is irrelevant to this question. If I had said that there is an infinite amount of Aristophaneses in the unvierse you would not have to know who or what Aristophanes is to know that my statement was stupid and absurd..

I Know that it is impossible for an infinite amount of energy to exist. Therefore I Know that your question is invalid. What you are basing this “infinity” on is irrelevant, it could be cowpats for all that matters, the subject is irrelevant to the claim in this instance.

 

[Moonstruck888]

You said “WHY does it take an infinite amount of energy”… and then you said it is impossible.

Yes. It is impossible because there is no such thing as an infinite amount of energy. However, that was not my question, whether or not it’s possible. My question was why it takes an infinite amount of energy, in theory, to seperate two Quarks?

It cannot both be impossible, and also possible with infinite energy. Your question is ridiculous.

No. I said nothing of the kind. You are just making a craven attempt to wriggle out of not being able to answer. It won’t wash.

Why it is not possible is irrelevant. It is either possible or impossible, you are saying it is both.

Wrong. You’d like me to be, so you could persist in your delusion that you know everything about the Universe, but that is not what I’m saying at all.

Knowing what a Quark is is irrelevant to this question. If I had said that there is an infinite amount of Aristophaneses in the unvierse you would not have to know who or what Aristophanes is to know that my statement was stupid and absurd..

I would have read some articles before I replied to any question I was asked that I planned to answer. You cannot even do that. You don’t have the knowledge to understand QCD. From personal experience, I can tell you that if you start researching now, you should have a grasp of the basics in a year or two, then you might be able to approach this in some kind of meaningful terms.

I Know that it is impossible for an infinite amount of energy to exist. Therefore I Know that your question is invalid. What you are basing this “infinity” on is irrelevant, it could be cowpats for all that matters, the subject is irrelevant to the claim in this instance.

All you are doing here is proving that you are too narrow minded to even find out what my question means. I have succesfully demonstrated that there is a Question you cannot answer.

It theoretically takes infinite energy to seperate two Quarks. Why?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Come on John. You understand everything about the Universe. Why does it take an infinite amount of energy, in theory, to seperate two Quarks?

 

[JohnDamian]

You’d like me to be, so you could persist in your delusion that you know everything about the Universe, but that is not what I’m saying at all.

I never said I did know everything in the universe. I said that (because every proposition in the material universe is knowable) then I could know this or that one.

All you are doing here is proving that you are too narrow minded to even find out what my question means. You’re pathetic.

No, I am demonstrating that wasting my time looking into the details of a particular question when the premise of the question is absurd is a waste of my time. I could ask you if there are an infinite number of leprechauns dancing on my table how many of them have got ginger hair?

Just because you may not know the particulars of the object of a question, does not mean that you do not know the absurdity of the premises applied to those objects.

Now, I do not know about the object “Quark”. But I do know about the premise “infinity”. When I see someone applying the premise “infinity” to an object in an actual and real sense, I know their question is absurd and not worth investigating.

Anyhow, I find it awfully unsporting that you are saying that I am narrow minded, when it is you who are applying my claim;

all discovered concepts in the material universe are known to be comprehensible to at least one human being, so the evidence is in my favor.

And applying it to me singularily, now that is narrow minded.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I never said I did know everything in the universe. I said that (because every proposition in the material universe is knowable) then I could know this or that one.

No, I am demonstrating that wasting my time looking into the details of a particular question when the premise of the question is absurd is a waste of my time. I could ask you if there are an infinite number of leprechauns dancing on my table how many of them have got ginger hair?

Just because you may not know the particulars of the object of a question, does not mean that you do not know the absurdity of the premises applied to those objects.

Now, I do not know about the object “Quark”. But I do know about the premise “infinity”. When I see someone applying the premise “infinity” to an object in an actual and real sense, I know their question is absurd and not worth investigating.

Anyhow, I find it awfully unsporting that you are saying that I am narrow minded, when it is you who are applying my claim;

And applying it to me singularily, now that is narrow minded.

One simple Wiki search and you would have some understanding of what I’m asking you. That’s all it would take. Five minutes out of your life and you could avoid looking any sillier than you already do.

Why does it take an infinite amount of energy to serperate two Quarks?

 

[JohnDamian]

Why does it take an infinite amount of energy to serperate two Quarks?

I don’t know what your missing here… but that question is stupid and ridiculous!!!

You might as well ask;

Why does it take a Aehklhrekljhjkhdsilaheilahsdia to seperate two Quarks

Because “infinite amount of energy” is as stupid and meaningless as “Aehklhrekljhjkhdsilaheilahsdia”.

–

You have told me that two Quarks cannot be seperated, which I accept. But nonetheless, your initial question was meaningless nonsense.

Anyway, if the answer is on wikipedia, then it is already known; and thus it is knowable. So I don’t see why you even brought up this silly question. Absolutely out of context.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I don’t know what your missing here… but that question is stupid and ridiculous!!!

You might as well ask;

Why does it take a Aehklhrekljhjkhdsilaheilahsdia to seperate two Quarks

Because “infinite amount of energy” is as stupid and meaningless as “Aehklhrekljhjkhdsilaheilahsdia”.

–

You have told me that two Quarks cannot be seperated, which I accept. But nonetheless, your initial question was meaningless nonsense.

Anyway, if the answer is on wikipedia, then it is already known; and thus it is knowable. So I don’t see why you even brought up this silly question. Absolutely out of context.

The answer is not on Wikipedia, but some idea of what I’m even asking you is. Do you even know what an asymptote is?

You’re really just another bigot, another man who thinks his little intellectual discipline is the be all and end all. You can’t answer my question and you have not looked into it to see if it is theoretically sound.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Because to comprehend the Universe in it’s entirety is beyond human limitations.

Comprehending the universe in its entirety is one thing.
But why would knowledge of the universes contingency be beyond the capacity of human knowledge? How have you come to this conclusion?

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

I suppose I agree somewhat with “moonstruck” in that, as it stands, a lot of the phenomenon in the universe is unknowable. That isn’t to say that one day, through the lens of science, it will become knowable.

The laws of thermodynamics present a problem for me with respect to the contingency of the universe. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. That being said, I think contemporary evidence points the the fact that the universe was created, or had a beginning. Secular science begs the question. It is curious that a Catholic Priest, Lamaitre, invented the Big Bang Theory and overturned Einstein’s idea of an “eternal universe”. Time had a beginning in the singularity of the big bang 15 billion years ago. One scientist said, “Modern science is just starting to confirm the truths that were apparent to theologians for centuries.” This quotation can be found in full in Dinesh D’souza’s book “What’s so great about christianity” which I believe is a response to christopher hitchens. It’s well researched and I recommend the book highly.

As to my own opinion, I’m leaning toward panentheism while holding that the Church is infallible on faith and morals. I think it is more logical that God, being omnipresent, created the universe as an extension of Himself and his own substance. The universe may be a closed system within God, while God remains transcendent and simultaneously beyond the universe. In this respect the universe is both contingent and not contingent; contingent in that it is wholly dependent on God because He alone sustains existence, but not contingent in that it is contained in God and essentially is God.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Comprehending the universe in its entirety is one thing.
But why would knowledge of the universes contingency be beyond the capacity of human knowledge? How have you come to this conclusion?

Not human knowledge, it is beyond the limits of the human mind.

Try as hard as you can to visualize in your mind what a four dimensional hypercube looks like and you’ll see what I mean.

 

[JohnDamian]

Not human knowledge, it is beyond the limits of the human mind.

Try as hard as you can to visualize in your mind what a four dimensional hypercube looks like and you’ll see what I mean.

Oh come on… We know that there are only three dimensions a priori. Your example is a ludicrous and absurd thing.

Defining the contingency of this table, or this chair is not beyond the limits of the human mind.

 

[LittleBits]

2 begin with, y can’t any1 just answer the question? We ALL (or most of us agree) that God created the universe, and that God is NOT subject 2 science… I believe that the OP meant ina parallel where our God doesn’t exist, would the existence of a universe depend on a being…
My answe is “yes” and “no”. For there 2 b a being 2 create said universe, there would already have 2 b a universe 4 said creator 2 “reside” in.
But if there was just a universe, and no beings, who would create a being?
Makes ur mind quiver, doesn’t it?

 

[JohnDamian]

2 begin with, y can’t any1 just answer the question? We ALL (or most of us agree) that God created the universe, and that God is NOT subject 2 science… I believe that the OP meant ina parallel where our God doesn’t exist, would the existence of a universe depend on a being…
My answe is “yes” and “no”. For there 2 b a being 2 create said universe, there would already have 2 b a universe 4 said creator 2 “reside” in.
But if there was just a universe, and no beings, who would create a being?
Makes ur mind quiver, doesn’t it?

No.

There does not have to be a “universe” per se for a nessecary being to reside in, or for that matter any place/plane/form/dimention etc. for such a being to reside in. That is the definition of nessecary.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Oh come on… We know that there are only three dimensions a priori. Your example is a ludicrous and absurd thing.

No. It seems likely that there is structure beyond the three dimensions we can experience. What that structure might be, at present time, is still beyond our knowledge.

Defining the contingency of this table, or this chair is not beyond the limits of the human mind.

Yes, but defining the contingency of a gluon interaction between two of the Quarks that make up your table and chair, as we have established, is beyond it.

 

[JohnDamian]

No. It seems likely that there is structure beyond the three dimensions we can experience. What that structure might be, at present time, is still beyond our knowledge.

When it is demonstrated physically that a singularity can be intersected at distinct (right) angles by more than three lines then I might accept the possibility of another “dimension”; without this I have no evidence or reason to believe in it.

Yes, but defining the contingency of a gluon interaction between two of the Quarks that make up your table and chair, as we have established, is beyond it.

Knowing why something happened is different to knowing that something happened;

X happens, it is irrelevant why it happened; but the fact that it happened itself implies that it happened consequentially; as things have never been observed or are intelligibly postulated to potentially happen unconsequentially; and by nessecity therefore we can define that when a thing happenes it’s happening illustrates it’s contingecy; a thing that is not contingent (ie;nessecary) does not happen; it is.

 

[Moonstruck888]

When it is demonstrated physically that a singularity can be intersected at distinct (right) angles by more than three lines then I might accept the possibility of another “dimension”; without this I have no evidence or reason to believe in it.

Spoken like a true scientist. What draws certain theoretical physicists towards other dimensions is that when you add dimensions the Universe suddenly makes sense mathematically.

While it is tempting to pursue this kind of cosmological Zollnerism, for once I am forced to agree with you. We must have evidence.

Knowing why something happened is different to knowing that something happened;

Indeed it is.

X happens, it is irrelevant why it happened; but the fact that it happened itself implies that it happened consequentially; as things have never been observed or are intelligibly postulated to potentially happen unconsequentially; and by nessecity therefore we can define that when a thing happenes it’s happening illustrates it’s contingecy; a thing that is not contingent (ie;nessecary) does not happen; it is.

That is where you and I part company I’m afraid. This all seems a bit of a stretch to me.