W
- Status
D
Detales
Guest
Again, what happens to matter may not reflect accurately the condition of Consciousness or of awarenss unless what you are talking about is the part dependent on life forms as you know them. The “end” of the universe as you describe it also does not account for the four levels of parallel universes, or multiverse, or hyper space, or the field(?) which are now now starting to be postulated by physicists. They have not yet accounted for the organizing principle of intelligence (NOT ID!!) or Love. There are yet seven dimensions at least that even physicists are quite sure of, beyond the four you think you experience.
This is why I continulally advocate the inquiry into Self. Who is all this “knowledge” coming to? Know yourSelf (Gnothi Seauton) and knowledge will come into its proper order. That’s’ entertainment!
This is why I continulally advocate the inquiry into Self. Who is all this “knowledge” coming to? Know yourSelf (Gnothi Seauton) and knowledge will come into its proper order. That’s’ entertainment!
S
Spock
Guest
Well, well… did you dine in the restaurant at the end of the universe?
Seriously, however, it would be a good idea to give some substantiation to such an “ex-cathedra” statement.
Look up this website: map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html and you will find that the actual shape of the universe is still an open question. The currently accepted value is still just a hypothesis, and subject to refinement.
What makes your posts so annoying is that you presume that the one of the currently accepted hypotheses is the “final” word - and state this misconception as if it were cast in stone. There is no final word in science. Those laws may be widely accepted, but they are never “final”. At best you could say that according to the currently accepted hypothesis the geometry of the universe is so-and-so.
Neverthless, you also commit the fallacy of generalizing from the correct version of SLOT (which only talks about subsystems) to the whole universe. The same fallacy, that is propagated across different pseudo-scientific “arguments”. No matter how many times these fallacious “arguments” are repeated, they will be incorrect.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Having a shape implies the existence of boundaries.
Infinity implies no boundaries.
Boundless boundaries is a contradiction.
S
Spock
Guest
Use the word geometry instead of shape… just don’t tell me that “geometry” is the science of describing the surface of the Earth.
Having a shape implies the existence of boundaries.
Infinity implies no boundaries.
Boundless boundaries is a contradiction.
Furthermore you could look up the Mandelbrot set, which has a distinct shape, and no boundaries. Check out the Koch snowflake, which is imbedded in a finite area (it is within a circle), yet has an infinitely long “boundary”. Fractals have some very interesting properties. But none of these is relevant for the question at hand.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
1
1holycatholic
Guest
That would be geodesy.
They aren’t relevant because they are potential infinities. Actual infinities do not physically exist.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Those pesky details!
Having a shape implies the existence of boundaries.
Infinity implies no boundaries.
Boundless boundaries is a contradiction.
jd
D
Detales
Guest
Excellent! Thank you.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Spock:
You seem so intelligent, why can’t you read:
“The Koch curve has an infinite length because each time the steps above are performed on each line segment of the figure there are four times as many line segments, the length of each being one-third the length of the segments in the previous stage” - Wikipedia
At what point did they stop the addition of steps and arrive at the infinite length or number? And, just exactly what length, or number, might that be? Since it’s made up of parts, it should have a number.
The hypothesis is that, with a continuous addition of steps, the figure could go on ad infinitum. The article should have said, “… a [potential] infinite length …”, unfortunately, they misspoke. Of course, I could be wrong, in which case I’d still like to know what the number of infinity is, or how many centimeters long is infinite length.
Even the mathematical definition talks only about approaching infinity, not of achieving it. This would appear to mean that the length can continue to expand ad infinitum. Thus, there is no number of infinity. There’s only the mathematical concept of it as potential.
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
Mandelbrot set:
"The Mandelbrot set M is defined by a family of complex quadratic polynomials
'given by
,
where c is a complex parameter. For each c, one considers the behavior of the sequence obtained by iterating Pc(z) starting at critical point z = 0, which either escapes to infinity or stays within a disk of some finite radius. The Mandelbrot set is defined as the set of all points c such that the above sequence does not escape to infinity. - Wikipedia
Again, no mention of achieving infinity. By the way, why do you suppose they use the number “0” (zero) as the critical starting point of the equation? Do you think it may have something to do with the fact that “infinity” and “zero” are used interchangeably in equations of this type? What is the definition of “0”?
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
J
JDaniel
Guest
J
JDaniel
Guest
Do you have anything I can read explaining the realty of “parallel universes”, or, “multiverses”, or, “hyperspace”, or “the field (?)”? All I could find was:
“The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes” - from Wikipedia.
And this, for “hyperspace”: “A Euclidean space of dimension greater than three (the original meaning of the word hyperspace, common in late nineteenth century British books, sometimes used in paranormal context, but which has become rarer since then)” - from Wikipedia
And this for “parallel universes”: “Parallel universe (fiction), alternative universes, worlds, realities and dimensions in fiction” - from Wikipedia
jd
D
Detales
Guest
OK, but first a note on an interesting phenomenon. I’m betting that it happens to everyone, but I notice it because it happens to me, lol! It is this: people who read my posts will almost invariabley latch on to anything besides the actual thrust of the post, leading me to believe that they are on a distinctly different page. I don’t doubt that that is true, as I do find myself in a rather different space of consideration than darn near anyone I know. Oh well, I was told this would be the case when I signed on, LOL!’
Michio Kaku seems to be a well resprected popularizer and anthologizer of modern physics research. At least he can scetch out to laymen what’s going on in reasonably understandable terms. Try reading any of these of his books: Hyperspace, Visions, & Physics of the Impossible. I think there are at least two with the last title.
Michio Kaku seems to be a well resprected popularizer and anthologizer of modern physics research. At least he can scetch out to laymen what’s going on in reasonably understandable terms. Try reading any of these of his books: Hyperspace, Visions, & Physics of the Impossible. I think there are at least two with the last title.
C
crowonsnow
Guest
Exactly. Or as JDaniel said, “Thus, I refute you.”
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Exactly. Or as JDaniel said, “Thus, I refute you.”
Actually, that was Dr. Samuel Johnson’s famous line.
Actually, that was Dr. Samuel Johnson’s famous line.
D
david_friol_1
Guest
Hey Spock
The atheist worldview renders these questions irrelevant, the deist view renders them relevant, but unanswerable.
Based upon Occam’s razor, the deist view is more complicated, and also posits the theoretically unanswerable question of “how”. Therefore the atheist view is “better”. It does not assume anything over the necessary minimum (the physical existence of the universe). Of course Occam’s razor is not a tool to decide which version is correct. It merely says that the simpler version should be the working hypothesis.
To decide which view is correct we must go further than the metaphysical base. Both of these views have consequeces, and we can examine which set of consequences is compatible with the state of affairs, as we know them. Besides, most believers are not simply deists, the concept of God is much more complicated. But that is a different issue.
Your comments are welcome.
\//
I have to go
God bless you
I’m sure if you were honest you would say that the only reason why you could say it is not a valid question to ask “what caused the universe?” is because you can not answer that question and so you just “pooh pooh” it. And this with the Knowledge that all the physical things in the universe do have a cause including the questions you ask. That is odd.
These two questions are not equivalent. Every child asks at some point where did I come from or something to that effect. And that is because something inside of us wants to know because of an inner sense of purpose and value that we naturally recognise before someone helps to snuff it out. You and I could go to the north pole and find out what is north of it with our eyes but the origin of the universe is not so easily discoverable.
All matter, of which the world is, disintegrates eventually. So with this change how does your statement make any sense?
I do not even have to answer because even you know though you will not admit it.
But none the less you will have to decide, choose wisely
Without your mind you could not create this question
The atheist worldview renders these questions irrelevant, the deist view renders them relevant, but unanswerable.
Based upon Occam’s razor, the deist view is more complicated, and also posits the theoretically unanswerable question of “how”. Therefore the atheist view is “better”. It does not assume anything over the necessary minimum (the physical existence of the universe). Of course Occam’s razor is not a tool to decide which version is correct. It merely says that the simpler version should be the working hypothesis.
To decide which view is correct we must go further than the metaphysical base. Both of these views have consequeces, and we can examine which set of consequences is compatible with the state of affairs, as we know them. Besides, most believers are not simply deists, the concept of God is much more complicated. But that is a different issue.
Your comments are welcome.
\//
I have to go
God bless you
- Status