PDA

View Full Version : Something to make you think.



Cyborg
27th April 2007, 01:54
Okay, I came up with this a few days ago and I want to see what everyone's response is. Here we go:

Let's assume that God (or any form of a god) doesn't exist. By observing the world around us, and just by thinking, we know that the universe exists. Fair enough statement? The universe is real.

Now, if there is no God (or god) and the universe is here (obviously) then that means in some form or another it has always existed. It doesn't matter if it was in a tiny little particle that exploded or whatever, something has always been here. If the universe was empty and completely devoid of energy and matter, then it would have stayed empty.

If the universe has always been and was never created, then it is safe to say that the universe has existed since infinite. There is no other explanation assuming that there is no God, because anything less than infinite would mean that at some point the universe was created.

Here's my point. If the universe has existed since infinite, then how do you get from an in-finite number such as that to a finite date in time such as today? If you can never reach the beginning of time, going backwards, then how can the beginning ever reach today?

Thoughts?

P.S. I was not doing drugs or drinking when I thought of this.

Ging
27th April 2007, 02:09
Why should there not be a point of creation (by that I don't mean a god type deciding, on a whim, to create the universe on a sunday afternoon after tea and crumpets) - we have a relatively good idea of when the earth was created, which links in with our understanding of the formation of our galaxy (and to a lesser extent, the universe).

There's two (main) points of view on the universe, one is that it cycles - booms, expands out and then contracts down to 'nothing' before booming again. The other is that it came into being (using whatever was there before as a basis) and hasn't stopped (nor will it stop) expanding.

TheMorris
27th April 2007, 02:18
While a sequence may be infinite (thinking of numbers here), the rule of infinity is that it includes every real possible number. The numbers 2 through 5 as still a part of infinity. Infinity+1=Infinity.

The dates are set up because we started counting at a point in infinity that we are in. Lets say we starting counting at 500. Infinity includes everything before that, but the date is just a measure of how long it has been since time 500.

And I feel that the universe cannot be infinite. As if it was, it is impossible to go through time, as if the universe started at an infinite time ago, then you can not reach a continuation of time, as there is an infinite time before that, and because of that time before time, you get a paradox in which that nothing can truly have a time because time has both not yet started and has been going on for an infinite amount of time before that. For the concept of time, which has been proven scientifically, to work, there must be a benching point of which to measure the time, which is the beginning of time.

In my mind, while everything has not been here forever, it did not come spontaneously into existence. Matter slowly leaked into the universe through whatever means, and slowly formed the universe. I don't think big bang could have worked really.

QReaper
27th April 2007, 02:35
Time is only a measurement, in all reality, time might not exist outside of the realm of numbers.:D

starstriker1
27th April 2007, 03:10
I don't see how time requires a starting point. In order to have meaning to us, yes, it needs to be measured in relation to something, but I have no trouble imagining an infinite universe or timeline. I'm personally in favour of the "no beginning, no end" position.

What you're bringing up, Cyborg, looks like Zeno's Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise) in the other direction.

Phaedrus
27th April 2007, 03:45
I believe that everything is infinite and that time is imaginary. Everything that can exist does exist all at once, forever. What any of us experience as reality is just a sequence of a collection of possibilities, out of infinite sequences and infinite collections. We are just crude patterns within the chaos of one of these sequences.

Mayhem
27th April 2007, 05:16
The universe is the god. It doesn't have it own will that could make it a 'living' or supernatural being. It gives death and creates life.

Just as Ging said
booms, expands out and then contracts down to 'nothing' before booming again. Life in the universe is like a heartbeat.

(Sry for the short and nonexplained thoughts of mine. Am in a hurry and just wanted to give a few thoughts in.)

E: Oh right. Am a atheist.

Zabiela
27th April 2007, 05:50
I see the universe simply as the playing out of subatomic particles based on a set of rules, most of which we know, many of which we don't. I beleive human and animal life on earth are merely the coincidence of the proper atmospheric and elemental conditions coming together over billions of years.
I think our consciousness is something that humans evolved into out of need, and in a sometimes scary sense it seems artificial, as all the aspects of my consciousness can be tied to reactions in my brain based on the physical laws I believe in.
The interesting part is when i then think of how far the human mind has come, and I realize we will only continue to evolve and become smarter. This usually gives me hope when I ponder the meaning of life and such.

Im posting off of my wii, now my wrist hurts :p

Alt
27th April 2007, 08:41
I see the universe simply as the playing out of subatomic particles based on a set of rules, most of which we know, many of which we don't.

Backing Zabiela's comment on rules and such, we cannot determine 'the ways' of the universe until we know (or figure out) every single rule. Thus making this thread aimless after the point of trying to figure out how the universe came about outside our realm of understanding :p

Cyborg
27th April 2007, 08:43
Why should there not be a point of creation (by that I don't mean a god type deciding, on a whim, to create the universe on a sunday afternoon after tea and crumpets) - we have a relatively good idea of when the earth was created, which links in with our understanding of the formation of our galaxy (and to a lesser extent, the universe).

There's two (main) points of view on the universe, one is that it cycles - booms, expands out and then contracts down to 'nothing' before booming again. The other is that it came into being (using whatever was there before as a basis) and hasn't stopped (nor will it stop) expanding.

by either theory my reasoning stands true. If the universe happens in cycles, then that is just more evidence that it had indeed been going on forever. the same matter and energy is used over and over, since infinite. if the bang happened once, then the matter has been sitting in that almost infinitely small particle since infinite anyways, because nothing ever created it.

what's my point? the universe had to start somewhere.

Cyborg
27th April 2007, 08:50
I don't see how time requires a starting point. In order to have meaning to us, yes, it needs to be measured in relation to something, but I have no trouble imagining an infinite universe or timeline. I'm personally in favour of the "no beginning, no end" position.

What you're bringing up, Cyborg, looks like Zeno's Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise) in the other direction.

An infinite time line cannot exist, as far as i can fathom, which was my original point. I agree with all of the people that also say that there must be some starting point or another, and I choose to attribute that to intelligent creation.

Demented
27th April 2007, 08:55
Here's my point. If the universe has existed since infinite, then how do you get from an in-finite number such as that to a finite date in time such as today? If you can never reach the beginning of time, going backwards, then how can the beginning ever reach today?

Thoughts?

P.S. I was not doing drugs or drinking when I thought of this.

By inevitability.

From any "point A", you will eventually reach "point B" in time.

However, if the universe has an infinite existence, then a "beginning" does not exist, and therefore is an invalid "point A". Thus the question is invalid. =P

Likewise with Zeno's paradox, that Startstriker mentioned. Except that it's not so much invalid as it is self-reinforcing. Much like saying that you can't win at a particular game, because the rules in the game say that you, by name, can't gain points, Achilles will never (at least, iteratively) reach the tortoise because Achilles' position is always in a position where the tortoise once was.

Cyborg
27th April 2007, 09:00
By inevitability.

From any "point A", you will eventually reach "point B" in time.

However, if the universe has an infinite existence, then a "beginning" does not exist, and therefore is an invalid "point A". Thus the question is invalid. =P

Likewise with Zeno's paradox, that Startstriker mentioned. Except that it's not so much invalid as it is self-reinforcing. Much like saying that you can't win at a particular game, because the rules in the game say that you, by name, can't gain points, Achilles will never (at least, iteratively) reach the tortoise because Achilles' position is always in a position where the tortoise once was.

but i did not pose a question, i arrived at a solution using deductive reasoning :)

You're correct. my reasoning does not work, because obviously we ARE at a finite point in time. so then what does that say about the origins of the universe?

Demented
27th April 2007, 09:33
What does that say about the origins of the universe? Essentially nothing, from where I stand at the moment. Unless, you again say you were arriving at a solution using deductive reasoning rather than posing a question. Those question marks get me all fooled up. ;)

(Philosophy and rhetoric don't mix too well... every question shall meet an answer, and every answer met with a question.)

It doesn't seem miraculous to me that, in an infinite amount of time, the present could be reached.

If I should ever exist, once I exist, I should exist in the here and now. Before I existed, I would not exist to ponder my own existence. Therefore, an infinite amount of time could pass without my notice. Likewise, once I cease to exist, an infinite amount of time will continue to pass without my notice. That, after an infinite amount of time, we should reach the "here and now", seems to me to be the only possible possibility. That is the only time I could ever exist: The present.

-SM-SUCKER
27th April 2007, 11:00
what's my point? the universe had to start somewhere.
Our brain needs such explanations. But just because our mind thinks that there MUST be an explanation to every problem doesn't mean that there IS such an answer. The human brain is not able to understand everything. In our world there are things like time, present, past and future but only because it suits us. I've read an article once that tried to explain there there are 5 or even 6 dimensions. I couldn't imagine something like it in "real tearms". Using vectors it's no problem, but that the my surroundings consist of 6 dimension is just out of my reach. Our brain creates a world out of what our senses feed it with. But we cannot hear all frequencies, cannot see the complete spectrum of light...
And what if (y)our brain is just connected to a large super computer and you/we are just some test objects in an completly different universe?

Paegus
27th April 2007, 11:15
i'm afraid that i find the argument moot. the space that is what we perceive as our universe came into being at a fixed point in the past: the big bang. we know that at one point everything existed in a single point because our observations of galaxies show that outside of the localized gravitational effects within galactic clusters they are separating, moving apart. but it's not that they're actually flying apart. it's that the space in which we exist is expanding in every direction. fortunately those localised gravitational effects keep us from doing so as well. at some point in the past everything was at a single point.



further reading for the abstract thinking. (http://www.sciam.com/search/index.cfm?i=1&options=0&q=misconceptions+about+the+big+bang&sort=0&tmpl=proxy&u1=q)

scratch
27th April 2007, 13:00
I agree with the "bang, expand and contract over and over again" theory. But as already mentioned here the problem we are being faced with is infinity, or to put it in other words: the (human) law of causality, which basically says that an effect needs a cause. A very basic example would be "you see the Hidden, you shoot him". This example also implies that there are rules to how the effect evolves from the cause; in regards to the universe it's physics: Matter is being converted to energy and vice versa; physics doesn't know the term "loss". On the other hand, we as humans are self-aware, emotional beings and as a result we have become accustomed to the fact that there is something like "loss", personal loss. What we know as birth and death is more like "changing the condition of aggregation" in physics; in biology it's a biotic-abiotic interplay. The fact that we can experience a start and an end doesn't necessarily mean that we can apply this to physics, too (at least not in the grand scale). The only reasonable answer i see is that the matter and energy the universe is made of has always been there and will always be, even if this contradicts causality as there is no "beginning", just a "going on". But, a "beginning" also needs the dimension of "time", which has been designed by humans. Matter and energy doesn't need time in order to "be", and neither does physics.

Sil
27th April 2007, 17:01
While a sequence may be infinite (thinking of numbers here), the rule of infinity is that it includes every real possible number. The numbers 2 through 5 as still a part of infinity. Infinity+1=Infinity.


Let's keep in mind that infinity is a tough word, eh? There's big and small infinities. All infinite beyond your comprehension. Some are just bigger than others.

Someone here linked Zeno's paradox... Yeh... Think about it. You can go from 1 to 2. Then, before getting to two, you go half the way. So, 1 and a half. Then, you take half of the next step to two. One and three quarters... Yeah, you get it, right?

So there's a potentially infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2?

Then what about 1 and 3? That should be infinite, too. Yet it's twice as big a space, so it's twice as big an infinite.


And that's just for potential infinity. What about actual infinity? Well, Ging kind of nailed it, I think, when he said that we start counting from, say, 500. Because, while you can't count all the numbers between 1 and 2 -- you can definitely count 1,5. You already did, in your futile attempt at following Zeno's paradox.

Also, regarding Zeno's paradox, he used them in order to disprove. Not boggle minds. It's kind of like irony, he's making it sound brainchurning when it is clearly a headstrong attack on philosophy.


Edit: Also, regarding the universe and its physics: A friend of mine who studied medical school bothered me one night about the theory of an expanding universe. "If energy is finite..."
Yeah. You get it. =)

scratch
27th April 2007, 19:11
Edit: Also, regarding the universe and its physics: A friend of mine who studied medical school bothered me one night about the theory of an expanding universe. "If energy is finite..."
Yeah. You get it. =)

That only applies to *the use* of energy like burning petrol in order to power a car. This particular process for example creates alot of products, which all aren't being "recycled" by us infinitely, which in that case means the petrol is being lost for this purpose as soon as it is used. That doesn't mean that the energy created during this process is inevitably lost: The amount of energy (in fact, i think matter IS energy) created in any chemical process equals the amount of energy used to initiate it, we're just not able to use every bit of it. The universe however uses all energy it consists of without exception, it's a car which uses all the byproducts over and over again due to fundamental laws of physics.

"Energy is subject to the law of conservation of energy. According to this law, energy can neither be created (produced) nor destroyed. It can only be transformed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Sil
27th April 2007, 19:23
Scratch, you're not getting me -- or I'm not getting you. What you're saying is that energy cannot be produced or removed. So it's finite. There's a finite amount of energy in the world, and it's being recycled.

How, then, can the universe keep expanding? Does matter or energy get "thinner" in the edges, or?

Yes, now you're getting me, eh? (Given that matter is energy, condensed at a slow vibration. E=MC^2 after all.)

Alt
27th April 2007, 20:29
Your expanding/contracting theory is all well and good *but*, arguably, it would come under perpetual motion. Correct?

scratch
27th April 2007, 20:36
Ah i guess i know what you want to say. The amount of energy the universe consists of is finite in terms of "amount" (not sure though lol, but let's just assume it does) but not in terms of "how much can be used" (as it is being "recycled" by 100% once used) - that's what i thought is what you mean.


How, then, can the universe keep expanding? Does matter or energy get "thinner" in the edges, or?

First, i guess i don't need to explain the "Big-Bang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang)" theory. Even in case this theory is not true, something gave the energy an enormous acceleration comparable to an explosion, hence it expands from the centre.
And yeah, i guess energy gets "thinner" towards the borders of the universe due to the nature of its movement, but the question is: Does the universe actually have a border? And how "extendable" is energy (for example, we know of four different conditions of aggregation)? Also, does energy need to be "everywhere" (fill every bit of space) in order for the universe to expand?

Zabiela
27th April 2007, 20:38
Your expanding/contracting theory is all well and good *but*, arguably, it would come under perpetual motion. Correct?

Zing!

But one could say, within our knowledge of physics, we cant yet disprove perpetual motion in all environments and circumstances.

Also, one could say the expanding and contracting doesnt fall under perpetual motion, but under a rubber-banding repetition of an intitial burst of energy, like the swaying of a pendulum, and we are only within one of its multiple phases that would die in intensity as time progressed.

scratch
27th April 2007, 21:03
Your expanding/contracting theory is all well and good *but*, arguably, it would come under perpetual motion. Correct?

You mean like a "perpetual motion machine"?
This is not impossible. The reason we are not able to replicate such an effect is a result of the environment here. For example, moving objects are subject to friction, hence the energy used to move an object is partially being transformed into heat, making the movement not 100% efficient.

Alt
27th April 2007, 21:09
Hold on a second. Gravity, that's a force, right? The only thing you need to make gravity is an object. That means that gravity (presuming its an energy) can and does exist without a dying degree?

scratch
27th April 2007, 21:14
Well, i'd say that's not quite correct as gravity weakens over distance. Apart from that, yeah. But what about it?

Zabiela
27th April 2007, 21:17
Hold on a second. Gravity, that's a force, right? The only thing you need to make gravity is an object. That means that gravity (presuming its an energy) can and does exist without a dying degree?

I think you're thinking of using gravity as an energy source. Too bad whatever you move with gravity needs an equal amount of force to be pushed back out of the field to renew the process.

Alt
27th April 2007, 21:18
Too bad whatever you move with gravity needs an equal amount of force to be pushed back out of the field to renew the process.

Fuck sake Zab, there you go, waste my brainstorm, moron. :p

Yeah my point was erh, that, an energy could exist, not strictly in motion, but exist without like, a source.

PS: Maybe I'm talking bollocks.

Demented
27th April 2007, 21:20
It being a force doesn't mean it is energy.
I'm just going out on a limb here (until I can become better informed), but I would assume that a force cannot be used as energy, only to manipulate it. Alternately, whatever energy there is that creates a force can be expended... That is, deriving energy from the gravity of a particle will eventually destroy the particle.

Sil
27th April 2007, 21:25
What really pisses me off is how such a pot-shouter can run poke holes in physics-related theories. My ramshackle prejudices are falling apart! I don't know what to think anymore! Is it not so that all coloured people are immigrants, and all immigrants steal? And all druggies steal, all druggies are dumb?

-- Err.. Let's not discuss this, though. I'm not trying to provoke anyone.

Light is subject to gravity. Energy should be, too, then -- if E=MC^2. And, thus, as one thing never can define itself -- according to basic onthology -- I'll assume forces and energy to be rapidly different. It's like water and deltas. Force = delta. Energy = water.

No? Yes? Maybe. I don't know.

scratch
27th April 2007, 21:25
Fuck sake Zab, there you go, waste my brainstorm, moron. :p

You'd even need to make sure that the object is only being influenced by the *intended* gravity source or you'd have to make corrections all the time, which means that additional energy is required. EXCEPT in the case when you WANT the object to be manipulated by every other object's gravity, kind of a satellite bouncing around until it crashes. Would move very slowly though if you don't give it an initial acceleration.

Alt
27th April 2007, 21:30
My nose has been rubbed in shit, I'll observe this from now.

scratch
27th April 2007, 21:34
My nose has been rubbed in shit, I'll observe this from now.

This though, i'd say is a perpetual motion machine. You got creamed, we all laugh. The amount of energy freed in this process is massive. xD

Demented
27th April 2007, 21:54
I don't know about it being a motion machine, but perpetual? Yes. =P

Zabiela
27th April 2007, 22:14
What really pisses me off is how such a pot-shouter can run poke holes in physics-related theories. My ramshackle prejudices are falling apart! I don't know what to think anymore! Is it not so that all coloured people are immigrants, and all immigrants steal? And all druggies steal, all druggies are dumb?

-- Err.. Let's not discuss this, though. I'm not trying to provoke anyone.

Haha, Sil you're the only person I miss when they quit posting here :D

TheMorris
27th April 2007, 23:24
The way I think of the universe expanding is that matter=energy, and that matter is being turned to energy naturally at the points in universe, expanding everything around it perpetually, as these are the same points where matter is seeping into the universe in my mind.

Paegus
28th April 2007, 00:17
matter and energy are gravitationally equivalent. you can't get either from no where so it was already there and given energy's tendency to expand (see: nuke), converting energy to matter woudl be a condensation NOT an expansion. then there's the bit about more mass/energy = more gravity so it'll eventually collapse back in on itself instead of expanding. expansion ona universal scale is essentially anti-gravity.

Dark Soul
28th April 2007, 02:21
Space=infinity
Space(infinity) collides with it's self creating the universe.

Think of it as ropes running out from one point out,and at some point colliding with each other to crate a universe.

Look at the infinity sign,it collides with it's self at some point.

TheMorris
28th April 2007, 02:59
I believe that the matter is coming from somewhere, it did at some point, and I think it still is.

scratch
28th April 2007, 03:40
I believe that the matter is coming from somewhere, it did at some point, and I think it still is.

How can you know? Care to share the secrets or is it just a belief? Not that it would be less worthy, but i'd like to hear some constructive thoughts.

Isolation
28th April 2007, 05:07
How can you know? Care to share the secrets or is it just a belief? Not that it would be less worthy, but i'd like to hear some constructive thoughts.

Black holes, worm holes, etc., that spew matter (ie, a destroyed solar system) for another point in space. Sort of like a fountain. Unless Morris is talking original matter being spontaneously created.

Cyborg
28th April 2007, 05:21
wow i come home from work and look what has happened (and how far off topic it has gotten).

I think that people tend to over-rationalize and convince themselves that they solved a problem when they actually didn't. Think of it as a clearly guilty man getting of on a technicality.

A lot of talk is being tossed around about black holes tossing things into existence or man not being able to understand the concept of infinite. I think I understand it very well, there is no beginning to infinite, and there is no end. No matter how far you go along infinite, you still have infinite left. It is impossible to have a universe with no beginning.

Cyborg
28th April 2007, 05:30
The way I think of the universe expanding is that matter=energy, and that matter is being turned to energy naturally at the points in universe, expanding everything around it perpetually, as these are the same points where matter is seeping into the universe in my mind.


the universe is defined as everything that exists. how can matter seep into the universe if it already was in the universe, just not in a way that our senses could detect? I'll tell you one thing, matter does not come from nothing.

Demented
28th April 2007, 07:04
Don't be too focused on believing that matter had to come from anywhere, be it nothing or something. At least, if you want to be correct.

Paegus
28th April 2007, 10:42
Space=infinity
Space(infinity) collides with it's self creating the universe.

Think of it as ropes running out from one point out,and at some point colliding with each other to crate a universe.

Look at the infinity sign,it collides with it's self at some point.

∞ is just a symbol like A, ®, ¶ or °. in and of itself it means nothing.

the expansion of the universe is NOT the expansion of our matter and energy through some pre-existing empty void. it is the expansion of SPACE itself. like the surface of a balloon expanding.

Ging
28th April 2007, 10:44
It is impossible to have a universe with no beginning.

I think that using the term "impossible" when it comes to something as huge and as old as the universe is, perhaps, a tad foolish.

Of course, you said earlier that you attribute the creation of the universe to an outside intelligence, so I ask you... What created the intelligence? Following your logic that the universe cannot have existed for 'infinity' and that it must have been created, than surely, if it were intelligently designed, it's designer must have been created at some point too!

Sil
28th April 2007, 13:17
The way I see it, it's inevitable that the universe exists through the very fact that we debate its existence.

Yes? You're inclined to disagree -- I can sense it. Let's follow up on that statement with an explanation:
We would not debate its existence if it did not exist. Time can have rolled on for a googolplex aeons before the universe begun its expansion for all we know or care -- it matters none. We don't have a reason to exist -- but we are an intelligent link in a chain of plausible events. The intelligence allows us to sense and debate ourselves and what is around us -- thus we recognise our surroundings and we debate it.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that the best reason for our existence is concentrated probability. We can exist because we would not, otherwise, be aware of our lacking existence. We're probable, we exist. We're intelligent, we debate.

If this makes half the sense I wanted it to, then my understanding of it is twice of yours. :)

No rule says we "must" exist. But we are variably intelligent entities in a "Goldilocks zone" of probability, and our intelligence grants us the ability to reflect upon this matter.
Yesno? If you don't get it, muse upon it or abandon my post knowing that I have outbrained you. ;)

(That last bit *may* have been a challenge to make you re-read and understand my post. I'll defend your point if you think otherwise, but it's still no more than a puerile challenge. :P)

lcpuche
28th April 2007, 13:57
I don't see how time requires a starting point. In order to have meaning to us, yes, it needs to be measured in relation to something, but I have no trouble imagining an infinite universe or timeline. I'm personally in favour of the "no beginning, no end" position.

What you're bringing up, Cyborg, looks like Zeno's Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise) in the other direction.

well its sort of like space because space is infinite but infinite nothingness that can be filled up. i wonder what if we are actually inside an atom :(

Dark Soul
28th April 2007, 15:06
∞ is just a symbol like A, ®, ¶ or °. in and of itself it means nothing.

the expansion of the universe is NOT the expansion of our matter and energy through some pre-existing empty void. it is the expansion of SPACE itself. like the surface of a balloon expanding.

I was just using the ∞ to show how i think the universe was created,endless space collided with it's self to create the universe.If space had an end to it,then we would all be blinded by light that bounces of it's "walls".

Cyborg
28th April 2007, 15:25
I think that using the term "impossible" when it comes to something as huge and as old as the universe is, perhaps, a tad foolish.

Of course, you said earlier that you attribute the creation of the universe to an outside intelligence, so I ask you... What created the intelligence? Following your logic that the universe cannot have existed for 'infinity' and that it must have been created, than surely, if it were intelligently designed, it's designer must have been created at some point too!

I don't think it is foolish to make an assertion when my concept really hasn't been rebuked.

what created the intelligence? the answer (contradictory as it may seem) is nothing. by my reasoning, something has always had to have been, since things are here now. It makes more sense to attribute it to an all powerful creator than plain chance, or to a science that has so far failed to explain the origins of the universe.

Dark Soul
28th April 2007, 16:25
But thats like saying magic tricks are real.Just because you can't explain how it's done,doesn't mean you have to take the easy way out and just say"it's real magic".

Ging
28th April 2007, 16:27
I don't think it is foolish to make an assertion when my concept really hasn't been rebuked.

Your concept is based upon a human view of the passage of time (which is, in the grand scheme of things insignificant) when looking at something as old as the universe. It's estimated (using a number of methods (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/%7Ewright/age.html)) that the universe is somewhere around 13 billion years old - consider that Humans as a race have been around for about 200,000 years, 13 billion years might as well be infinity!


what created the intelligence? the answer (contradictory as it may seem) is nothing. by my reasoning, something has always had to have been, since things are here now. It makes more sense to attribute it to an all powerful creator than plain chance, or to a science that has so far failed to explain the origins of the universe.

Woah, woah, woah... So your willing to believe that the "intelligence" came from nothing, but the universe didn't?

However, going down that line just devolves the discussion into an argument about religious fallacy.

scratch
28th April 2007, 16:51
This "powerful creator" scheme makes less sense to me than anything else. So i guess it's a question of belief? I mean, "science" needs time and meticulous work to uncover the secrets, while "belief" can make you know the answers without even knowing of what you're talking about. Isn't that a tad too easy?

Anyway, how about this one (from the big-bang theory): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Universe_expansion.png

Can anyone explain singularity in words i understand? xD


Also, i found an interesting quote on a similar discussion on Slashdot (http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/04/27/2141230.shtml):

"A chemistry teacher of mine in high school (early 90's) of mine had a big, long lecture about the universe and built it all up from subatomic particles and ended with the vastness of space. It was his Xmas gift for his classes every year, and we loved it. Well at least those with half a brain did.

Anyway, his twist at the end resembled this article. He said that everything in the universe has gravity. Well, if everything has gravity, then the universe itself has a gravitational pull. Eventually the mass of the universe would be such that any light trying to escape it would be pulled back inside, which would make the universe appear to be black hole from anyone on the outside looking in..."

Paegus
28th April 2007, 17:14
If space had an end to it,then we would all be blinded by light that bounces of it's "walls".

if you think that then consider Olbers' paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox): why isn't the night sky white? there are countless stars out there and they're all luminous. so why isn't the night sky literally filled with them? frame of reference as it bounces off of Hubble's constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law). we can only see objects that are receding from us slower than the speed of light. everything within ~14billion light years. everything outside that range is receding faster than the speed of light (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147&pageNumber=3&catID=2) so we can't see it.

Dark Soul
28th April 2007, 17:34
But i thought objects can't move faster then the speed of light,anything faster and we start moving backwards in time.

<Beatlemania>
28th April 2007, 17:37
When i was just five i started thinking about a more primitive form of this. I started thinking about the whole universe and what happens to me when I die. I can't remember what I was thinking, but it was the first time i questioned religion (im still a good catholic today). I started crying and I couldn't stop, I was trying to get it out of my mind for a whole day. I didn't start thinking about it until a few years ago, when I understood science more.

Okay, so the point of that random memory is that humans have different levels of understanding. A dog knows how to run and play and catch a ball, but he doesn't know the inner workings of his legs or how a ball is made, and he has no way to figure out how it does. So I personally think that we'll never understand how the universe is made and why things exist. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but just like, as humans, theres always one more thing we'd like to do, theres always one more thing we'll never know.

P.S. i remember reading in the back of the book Timeline the thought that time doesn't exist, because humans sort of make it up, the universe doesn't really change. (Sorry if that doesn't make sense i havent read about that for a long time)

Ging
28th April 2007, 17:55
But i thought objects can't move faster then the speed of like,anything faster and we start moving backwards in time.

That's only in terms of special relativity, the velocity that galaxies move apart at is recessive, which doesn't violate special relativity when velocities are higher than the speed of light. (this is all explained in the article that Paegus has linked to a couple of times)

Sil
28th April 2007, 17:59
I'd like to toss off an idea onto you. Could life *not* have come into existence? I'd say yes. But then we wouldn't know. It could have, in many instances, failed to appear -- save this one. This particular example -- the example of earth -- contains life. Because it's a probable turn of events. If one thing happens after the other, sooner or later, you're likely to end up at life.
There's things happening all the time, everywhere. These things have outcomes, reactions or "consequences" if you will. It's the basic idea of energy simply transmuting into matter or more energy instead of disappearing all over again.
So there's lots of ways the world can turn out. Alternatives.

"But, amidst all those alternatives, what're the odds that it'd be this configuration -- that we existed?"
Well, basically, any configuration is as likely as the other. Then we introduce the idea that one major configuration can be the result of several different, smaller configurations. Some configurations of the cosmos are then more likely than others.
Life is rather likely. It works very nicely, and it can happen in many different situations with only basic prerequisites of the enviroment.

Water is also a very likely thing, so we'll find it around. It works, it's likely. Humans are very likely, once there is life. If we did not exist, which is the case for most scenarios involving different points of time or different places in the universe, then we would not know and, thus, the idea of us being unlikely is void.
Picture a line that goes on forever. Okay. Now picture a line protruding perpendicularly from the center of this line. You can now imagine a square field, infinitely long in all directions. Imagine, then, watching this two-dimensional area from the side, so that you see only a flat sheet, sort of. Now imagine a third line, going perpendicularly from the line representing this "sheet". You have an infinitely large cube.
Does the cube exist if it never exists? If there is no time in which it exists? Let's pretend it can't, and that we need time as a fourth dimension. Okay, so this dimension exists for (you guessed it) an infinite amount of time.

Let's pretend that this cube is our universe. I don't care if you think it's spherical, it doesn't matter. What matters is that this universe is a potential infinity. You can count these lines, mapping them by one lightyear at a time, putting pegs at these points. You'd have coordinates. 1, 2, 3... From 1 to 2, you can have an infinite amount of decimals. Let's say that we exist, for the fuck of it, at the coordinates of "pi" with roughly twenty thousand decimals. And it exists for some 200 million years. I don't care for the exact date, let's just say 200 million or billion years. This is our "Earth". We exist on it for roughly 20-40 000 years. Perhaps 200 000, if you will. I don't care.

The point is... This is our world, we're thinking about how huge it is. Now zoom out.

How likely aren't we? We 're almost bound to exist, sooner or later.



Shenaniways. You probably think what I said was a repetition of what everyone else said. Well, there's a deeper point to it. It's not just "You're small, the world is big and infinite. Of course you exist." -- it's not a cliché.

Paegus
28th April 2007, 19:37
But i thought objects can't move faster then the speed of light,anything faster and we start moving backwards in time.

yeah... they may be milling around in their local cluster at perfectly normal velocities but other than that the galaxies aren't really moving at all. it's the space that lies between us and them is expanding. every bit of it in every direction. so as long as they are far enough apart that their forces (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html) aren't strong enough to overwhelm this expansion of the very space they exist in, the more space you have between 2 objects the faster they recede from each other. the end result is that our perception of them is that they are moving away at ever increasing speeds. the farther away from us they are the faster they're doing so. until it gets to a point where they just aren't visible any more. if they were still visible then as mentioned earlier the night sky would be literally full of 'stars'.

Demented
28th April 2007, 20:35
Anyway, how about this one (from the big-bang theory): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Universe_expansion.png

Can anyone explain singularity in words i understand? xD

Well, you probably know the standard definition of singularity.
Stuff enough stormtroopers into a garbage compactor until the mass's gravity causes it to crush itself into near nonexistence.

With infinity it's a little harder to imagine, since the stupid part of your brain asks "Well, if you have an infinite amount of space, can't you fit an infinite amount of matter into it?" Yes. But it's the density that counts.

Vaporous: For every cubic meter, you have one gram of dust.

Dense: For every cubic millimeter, you have ten grams of dust.

Singularity: For every cubic planck space, you have more dust than can concievably fit, to the point where, well, CRUNCH. Or BOOM. Whichever works.

Zabiela
29th April 2007, 01:53
Threads like this are why I love discussion forums. I mean, where in our physical world can we indulge in so much opinion and information in one sitting? A university classroom maybe, but that's still 1 man's opinion.

Cranky
8th May 2007, 08:34
by either theory my reasoning stands true. If the universe happens in cycles, then that is just more evidence that it had indeed been going on forever. the same matter and energy is used over and over, since infinite. if the bang happened once, then the matter has been sitting in that almost infinitely small particle since infinite anyways, because nothing ever created it.

what's my point? the universe had to start somewhere.

If we would reason that the universe exists in cycles, yes we would have to assume that it has been happening since infinity and will continue to happen an infinite number of time. However this would not require us to set a starting time of the universe, since there is no such thing according to the theory. If we would assume that something has been happening an infinite number of times we would come to a conclusion (since infinity is all numbers, numerically speaking) that we would not be able to set a starting time because it would always be a cycle before it. Therefore the universe did not have to start anywhere, it has existed for an infinite amount of time and will continue existing if nothing disturbs this cycle.

If we would assume that the event refered to as big bang as the starting point of the universe we would not ask the question of what was before, we would rather be looking at big bang as "the start" and therefore the question of what was before is obsolete. This method would have set the universe age to roughly 12-15 billion years (it depends on what theory you base your studies on) and we would assume there was nothing before it.

Both of theese theorys are very hard (if not impossible, I dunno) for the human mind to grasp. But what we have to understand is that one of those theories are true and one is false. Because we do not know which one is true we have to assume that both are or settle for one of them. Considering that if both were tue we are looking at a paradox and therefore this state-of-mind might be stupid to have. We would therefore have to assume one to be true and decide which one is for ourselves, though this doesn't make either thesis more true.

My point is that we do not know how old the universe is, though it must be between 12 and infinity billion years old. Also, what we have to understand is that the unverse doesn't have to do anything except follow its laws. We do not know all of theese laws and therefore we assume that it has existed for any amount of time (preferably >12 billion years) because we cannot tell if it has. If you'd like to, you could also remain neutral and when someone finds out whichever option is real (we have an infinite number ;)) we stick to that one until that someone is proven wrong.

EDIT: Also, on the subject of intelligent design. Cyborg, you say that the universe cannot exist for an infinite amount of time. This would make us assume that, if your statement is true, it started its existence somewhere. You said that a god would have created this. Then who created that god? According to you he existed before creation for an infinite amount of time. This would make us believe that existing in an infinite amount of time is a possibility, which would render your first statement, that existing for an infinite amount of time is an impossibility, false and there would be no god to blame creation for. Also, whatever the human mind can understand has nothing to do with this, since it may be impossible to grasp the actual situatuation.
.

Paegus
8th May 2007, 10:36
if it's cyclic then conservation of energy (matter,momentum,etc) probably makes it into a giant pendulum with the exact same thing happening over and over an over again. our perception of it may be finite and a finite number of years from now it'll happen all over again.

fortunately for the unimaginative, the universe is not cyclic. at least it shows no signs of being so.


e: my bad entropy++ so even a cyclic universe will 'end'. albeit in a book-never-hits-floor like paradoxy sorta way.. but our perception of this ever less energetic universe could still be the same right? right? i mean even if our future incarnation's c is only 280,000 of our km per our seconds... but then they/we wouldn't know the difference would they/we?

Mr. Bottomhat
8th May 2007, 12:12
I think it's foolish to apply common sense to things as weird as time and space, especially if you haven't read and understood general relativity. The only thing we know is that the universe probably was a single point ~13,7 billion years ago. That's all there is, nothing more and nothing less untill we can find a way to detect what happened before that point. God is totally irrelevant.

Cranky
8th May 2007, 15:03
fortunately for the unimaginative, the universe is not cyclic. at least it shows no signs of being so.

And here I thought that the theory of it being cyclic was backed up by at least something.

Paegus
8th May 2007, 18:06
it appears to be expanding and to have been doing so faster and faster since it came into existence.
even if it is cyclic and not 'our' universe there's still entropy which means at some point (in the existential past or future) the cycle runs down. it may be a few trillion cycles but eventually it just wont have the energy to get up in the morning.

the only real problem (in favour of cyclic) with the big bang theory is the cosmological constant for expansion is smaller than expected. but wikipedia will explain that better than i can.

<Beatlemania>
8th May 2007, 23:56
Threads like this are why I love discussion forums. I mean, where in our physical world can we indulge in so much opinion and information in one sitting?

Threads like this hurt my head.

VoiceOfDecember
9th May 2007, 00:24
I was havin a think about this the other day and this is what I came up with...

First law of thermodynamics suggests that the amount of energy in a system is constant. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only converted.

So the universe is estimated to be created 13.7 billion years ago from an extremly hot and dence state. Is it possible that the our universe is just in a cycle of fluxuations? It expands for (god nows how long) from its initial state and reaches a point where the energy distribution gets so thin it collapses on itsself at one point so fast that at that point the density is so great and all that energy gets so hot that it creates a big bang and the universe starts all over again?

What are your thoughts on this? I cant really say that the universe will continue to expand till critical, i don't know about that stuff, just guessing its possible :rolleyes:

Cyborg
9th May 2007, 00:48
I was havin a think about this the other day and this is what I came up with...

First law of thermodynamics suggests that the amount of energy in a system is constant. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only converted.

So the universe is estimated to be created 13.7 billion years ago from an extremly hot and dence state. Is it possible that the our universe is just in a cycle of fluxuations? It expands for (god nows how long) from its initial state and reaches a point where the energy distribution gets so thin it collapses on itsself at one point so fast that at that point the density is so great and all that energy gets so hot that it creates a big bang and the universe starts all over again?

What are your thoughts on this? I cant really say that the universe will continue to expand till critical, i don't know about that stuff, just guessing its possible :rolleyes:


good job thinking up something that has already been mentioned many times under the very clever disguise of "cyclical."

naw, jk. others have had the same thoughts as you.


If we would reason that the universe exists in cycles, yes we would have to assume that it has been happening since infinity and will continue to happen an infinite number of time. However this would not require us to set a starting time of the universe, since there is no such thing according to the theory. If we would assume that something has been happening an infinite number of times we would come to a conclusion (since infinity is all numbers, numerically speaking) that we would not be able to set a starting time because it would always be a cycle before it. Therefore the universe did not have to start anywhere, it has existed for an infinite amount of time and will continue existing if nothing disturbs this cycle.

you're absolutely correct in not setting a starting point in the universe, since infinite is never ending. i agree with you. the point is, then, how do you get from an infinite (read 'in-finite') date with no starting point to a finite, measurable date such as right now? if the universe did not start, then we could never reach the present time.

as for people criticizing my acceptence of an infinitely existing God... that is the whole point. something has always had to have been, by my simple-minded reasoning, so is it easier to attribute it to a freakishly existing universe or an all-powerful creator?

Demented
9th May 2007, 02:45
the point is, then, how do you get from an infinite (read 'in-finite') date with no starting point to a finite, measurable date such as right now? if the universe did not start, then we could never reach the present time.

How do we go from an infinite number of integers, with no lowest number, to a finite, measurable number, such as 12,063? If the numbers are innumerable, then we could never count to a specific number.


@VoiceOfDecember
That seems good right up until you hit the part about the universe becoming so thin that it collapses on itself. Until someone can figure out how that happens...

VoiceOfDecember
9th May 2007, 04:33
@VoiceOfDecember
That seems good right up until you hit the part about the universe becoming so thin that it collapses on itself. Until someone can figure out how that happens...

Yea i dunno man. I dont have the knowledge to back that kinda stuff up.

Oh and if my post was just what every1 else has been sayin then sorry :S I only skimmed thru the thread very breifly

Cyborg
9th May 2007, 07:11
How do we go from an infinite number of integers, with no lowest number, to a finite, measurable number, such as 12,063? If the numbers are innumerable, then we could never count to a specific number.

you don't. that's why you don't count from infinite to any number, and that's why you cant have an infinite universe.

Doomsiren
9th May 2007, 09:47
If god would exist then he has already forsaken this world

Ging
9th May 2007, 10:28
you don't. that's why you don't count from infinite to any number, and that's why you cant have an infinite universe.

I don't fully understand why our inability to appreciate "infinity" means it can't have happened...

Paegus
9th May 2007, 12:04
using that number analogy you've solved your own problem. we simply count our existence from some arbitrary point we call zero (big bang).

as for the perfectly cyclic universe, as mentioned we've discussed that an entropy gives it a start and/or end point. you're not destroying energy, you're just converting it into something useless. each time it contracts again there will be slightly less usable energy for the 'explosion'... or is that slightly less energy for the keeping of things together?

Cyborg
9th May 2007, 15:05
I don't fully understand why our inability to appreciate "infinity" means it can't have happened...

you really can't use "oh, well we just don't comprehend it" as a valid point in a discussion.


using that number analogy you've solved your own problem. we simply count our existence from some arbitrary point we call zero (big bang).

as for the perfectly cyclic universe, as mentioned we've discussed that an entropy gives it a start and/or end point. you're not destroying energy, you're just converting it into something useless. each time it contracts again there will be slightly less usable energy for the 'explosion'... or is that slightly less energy for the keeping of things together?

it doesn't matter where or when the big bang happened, its the fact that even before the big bang, all matter still existed in that one point. the big bang is not the origin of the universe, just the origin of matter and energy being spread out over distances. it was still there, and by my assertion, always there.


If god would exist then he has already forsaken this world

that's a very depressing statement. i'm sorry you think so.

Ging
9th May 2007, 16:04
you really can't use "oh, well we just don't comprehend it" as a valid point in a discussion.

Yet somehow - having an all powerful creator that invalidates the very issue you're discussing (something having been around for infinity) is a valid point?

Humans think in terms of lifetimes - 10 life times combined is what, 750 - 1000 years (less than that in reality, but keeping it simple)... So we've been around for 200 life times (roughly 200,000 years)...

When we're talking 13 billion years, consider a life time to be 100 years (way excessive, but there we go) and you're looking at one hundred and thirty million human lives, one after the other. Our time lines are on a micro scale - we say "since infinity" the universe says "five minutes", it's a completely different point of reference.

We can't comprehend infinity as a timeline - it's not in our nature to comprehend on the sort of macro scale required to do figure out what that actually means.

It's a bit of a moot argument really - there's no way of proving it unless we can travel back to the very start and see it ourselves, but as that's unlikely to happen any time soon it's not like it's a major issue. You have your beliefs, however misguided they are to a lot of us and we have ours.

Cyborg
9th May 2007, 16:29
Yet somehow - having an all powerful creator that invalidates the very issue you're discussing (something having been around for infinity) is a valid point?

no i didn't even use it as a point... but whatever... who is the we in "and we have ours"? sounds a bit arrogant to think that everyone who matters agrees with you.

Cranky
9th May 2007, 16:49
you're absolutely correct in not setting a starting point in the universe, since infinite is never ending. i agree with you. the point is, then, how do you get from an infinite (read 'in-finite') date with no starting point to a finite, measurable date such as right now? if the universe did not start, then we could never reach the present time.

as for people criticizing my acceptence of an infinitely existing God... that is the whole point. something has always had to have been, by my simple-minded reasoning, so is it easier to attribute it to a freakishly existing universe or an all-powerful creator?

If you refer to counting to today we have just set a finite point in time that is referred to as 0. Then we start counting. If, however, you are referring to setting a finite point in time from the non-existant beginning of the universe, then we have a little bit of a problem. But we could assume that there is perpetual motion in motion here (not that funny, really) then there could not be an infinite number of contractions/expansions because then it would've ended somewhere. Considering this we might say that there was a starting point in time. And asking what was before it is silly, since there was no such thing as before it. However unimaginable this might seem it's perfectly possible, concidering there will not always be a before. Concidering that the, apparently, more correct theory, that of the universe starting for 13 billion years ago, clearly states that there is no point in asking what was before.

The thing you have got to understand is that there might be a beginning of time and that something does not have to had always existed before the "beginning". Also even if you say that your mind cannot comprehend this situation it might still exist. Also, if the "God" you are referring to is the biblical one then he is a paradox himself, at least according to the bible. Concidering that this thread was about creation, religion as well, in the first place I will state my points here.

The bible clearly states that God is a perfect being. If he was we would assume that he needs no other thing than himself, he is all. Therefore the whim of creation should never have come to him, considering that he needed nothing more. Also he creats an imperfect being, man, and this would also be impossible for a perfect being.

The bible also clearly states that God has omniscience. Then why does he experience emotions (concidering they are the product of being surprised) and test people? He already must know the outcome of everything. Also an omniscientic being would have known that the creation would have caused bad things such as the drowning of all life on an entire planet, save for a selected few. If God would be good then he would not have created anything, concidering it would make people more unhappy than happy. Also, the sins in the bible are of sometimes questionable character since they send you to hell for working on a sunday, for not believing in god, however good you are and multiple similar unfairness. Also some guy did a killcount of god and satan in the bible and it ended up something like this:
Satan: 0
God: 1 million - 1 billion
So how good is he, really?

The bible states a lot of things similar to those, making him an impossible being. But the worst thing is that he punishes people for finite sins with infinite punishment. Who in the right mind would do that, that is certainly not justice. And that's only the bible, the organisation of the catholic and, in some cases, the protestanthic (dunno if this is the right word) church have done multiple things that are frowned upon, such as the holy crusade and in Sweden the robbing of poor people.

Also, Cyborg, Ging was referring to a number of people that do not think the same, just not the same as you think.

EDIT: I'm sorry for the wall of text, but I just can't seem to speak conservative when it's about stuff I really enjoy talking about. Also, I am not trying to say that anyone is shit or anything like that, I just have an offensive way of argumenting, that's all, so don't get angry at me or something.

Cyborg
9th May 2007, 18:11
If you refer to counting to today we have just set a finite point in time that is referred to as 0. Then we start counting. If, however, you are referring to setting a finite point in time from the non-existent beginning of the universe, then we have a little bit of a problem. But we could assume that there is perpetual motion in motion here (not that funny, really) then there could not be an infinite number of contractions/expansions because then it would've ended somewhere. Considering this we might say that there was a starting point in time. And asking what was before it is silly, since there was no such thing as before it. However unimaginable this might seem it's perfectly possible, considering there will not always be a before. Considering that the, apparently, more correct theory, that of the universe starting for 13 billion years ago, clearly states that there is no point in asking what was before.

The thing you have got to understand is that there might be a beginning of time and that something does not have to had always existed before the "beginning". Also even if you say that your mind cannot comprehend this situation it might still exist.


if the universe is cyclical with long periods of expansion, contraction, and re-expansion, then we cannot say that the universe started 13 billion years ago. that is just the newest cycle, but the same matter and the same energy has existed long before that in innumerable cycles. the universe is defined as everything in existence, so 'time' should continue on through these cycles and not restart with each cycle. it doesn't make sense. just because the universe is contained in a single point does not mean that when it expands again that the matter is different. time continues on.

as for your assertion that time might have indeed had a concrete beginning point and that nothing existed before, then how in your right mind do you accept the universe (which is a whole lot of stuff) spontaneously springing from nothingness? thats what it would have to do, because anything else means that it still existed in some way, making it infinite.

::Edit::

aight, going to school. see you chaps later.

Demented
9th May 2007, 22:37
A "finite" universe (how finite is it really, if it can be presumed that time starts at a point, and then progresses onwards infinitely?) doesn't prove the existence of God any more than an infinite universe disproves it. God could just as easily create a universe in whatever form, even with an apparent past. It's only the creation theory that's being argued for, not God.
___

Anyway, there's nothing logically wrong with time being infinite, as far as I can currently tell.

Our perception of time requires that we use reference points to measure the passage of time; however, that doesn't make time finite. Only our measurements are finite. Arguably, that's also where the confusion begins.

In hypothesizing the "beginning" of time, you have to deal with the impossibility of something being before the beginning of time, since, in our experience, any point in time has a point in time leading up to it and one following it. This makes a beginning of time illogical, since it is defined as having no point leading up to it, something which cannot be logically arrived at. The only reason that a beginning of time seems acceptable is because it serves as a reference point, fitting in with our measured perception of time. However, the beginning of time being illogical, we're left with no solution but God.

The only reason we eventually arrive at God is because we can give it any arbitrary attribute that is convenient to solve a particular dilemma, without having to deal with the logical incongruities of whatever conundrum we've worked ourselves into.

Note that the big bang is an explanation for the expansion of the universe, not it's creation.

(Personally, I believe that any solution for the universe which eventually arrives at God, is underestimating how clever God is. I've also bothered to imagine nothingness. It made my head implode, which was very unpleasant.)

Cyborg
10th May 2007, 01:53
well, yes, demented. my original post did not mention God at all, besides assuming for the sake or argument that he doesn't exist. things like this just tend to, as you say, default to the creation theory.

but there IS a problem with the universe being infinite... there's no mistaking that you cannot reach infinite.

Paegus
10th May 2007, 11:08
perhaps because infinity is not a number. it's a concept... 1/0 is not ∞ it's U(ndefined)... or E┌┌□┌ depending on your calculator of choice.

Doomsiren
10th May 2007, 11:28
just like we feel that we control our life but what do we know? we don't know how all of this began. no one knows the purpose of life. perhaps we are the ants in the eyes of unknown. i always believed that earth is a cell like in a body and the universe is like a part of a body. and we humans are the disease who will criple this cell like cancer does with us. and we will spread to other planets whom are also cells. we are micro organisms in a body. and perhaps we humans are also a universe. we have cells in our body and perhaps other races live in our cells...damn i lost my mind xD

Cyborg
11th May 2007, 07:42
just like we feel that we control our life but what do we know? we don't know how all of this began. no one knows the purpose of life. perhaps we are the ants in the eyes of unknown. i always believed that earth is a cell like in a body and the universe is like a part of a body. and we humans are the disease who will criple this cell like cancer does with us. and we will spread to other planets whom are also cells. we are micro organisms in a body. and perhaps we humans are also a universe. we have cells in our body and perhaps other races live in our cells...damn i lost my mind xD

good luck finding any facts (or anyone) to back that up :)

Doomsiren
11th May 2007, 07:48
just what i think :/ god is not a fact i belief in what scientists say the base thing on facts

Cyborg
11th May 2007, 07:48
perhaps because infinity is not a number. it's a concept... 1/0 is not ∞ it's U(ndefined)... or E┌┌□┌ depending on your calculator of choice.

the universe is very defined, isn't it? the Undefined or Error in a calculator both translate to "No answer" or "Not possible." so if the universe cannot be infinite (since by mathematical terms it is not possible but the universe is obviously here) then we must assume that the universe has a finite starting point, where matter and energy first came to be...


just like we feel that we control our life but what do we know? we don't know how all of this began. no one knows the purpose of life.


i belief in what scientists say the base thing on facts.

aren't your two statements there completely contradicting?

Paegus
11th May 2007, 11:27
our purpose as i see it is pretty simple really. it's the same purpose any organic molecule and by abstraction any form of life has. and oddly enough the bible said it best: be fruitful and multiply. intelligence is just the ultimate advantage (short of eye las0rz) that enables one species to dominate another one which was competing with or preying on the former.

at least that's what i believe. and bollox to finding any evidence.

@ cyborg
as i said infinity is not a number it is a mathematical concept. 1 is no closer to infinity than 1,000,000,000,000,000 is.

infinitely small is just as much of an oxymoron as infinitely large. neither cab exist because infinite has no value. it's just an exaggerated way of saying "fucking small" or "xbox hueg".
1/3 = 0.3333[/i]... off to infinite right? so does 3*(1/3) = 0.999[u]9... off to infinity? by abstraction the difference between 0.9999... off to infinity and 1 is "infinitely small" and therefore does not exist.

is our universe the entirety of all existence on all planes and branes and whatever else they come up with? how can it be? if it was it couldn't be expanding because it would already be there.

will/has our universe exist/existed forever however are a slightly different conceptual questions.

Sil
11th May 2007, 14:25
Well, infinite can be small, though, can't it? There's an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2, right? 1.5, 1.55, 1.618...

It's really infinite, right, the amount of numbers you can squeeze between two numbers. Potentially infinite. Then the amount of numbers between 1 and 3? Infinite. But more than 1-2.

My point is that small infinite is possible.

Although, infinitely small... Well, if you think "Half a graviton", then "Quarter a graviton" and so on, you could go on forever, halving your gravitons. Infinitely small. But that's not a given number, it's a potential infinity.

Ooh, job inteview. Gotta run.

Cyborg
11th May 2007, 16:33
so does 3*(1/3) = 0.9999...

actually, it doesn't. thats just an inferior machine telling you so. 3 x (1/3) = 1

but anyways... I agree with you when you say that in infinite universe cannot exist. my original point was that it wasn't possible, and therefore had to have had a very finite starting point. as for the universe encompassing everything... that IS the definition of the universe, all matter and energy that exists.

Ging
11th May 2007, 17:04
actually, it doesn't. thats just an inferior machine telling you so. 3 x (1/3) = 1

Erm - no, that'd be your "superior" machine doing rounding... The actual answer is .9 recurring. Which is because you can't divide 3 by 1 exactly, leaving you with .3 recurring, multiply that by 3 and you get 0.9 recurring. Windows calculator (amongst others I assume) will round that up for you, but that doesn't make it "correct".

Cyborg
13th May 2007, 18:10
Erm - no, that'd be your "superior" machine doing rounding... The actual answer is .9 recurring. Which is because you can't divide 3 by 1 exactly, leaving you with .3 recurring, multiply that by 3 and you get 0.9 recurring. Windows calculator (amongst others I assume) will round that up for you, but that doesn't make it "correct".


the order of operations tells you to go from left to right in cases of division and multiplication, so you would actually multiply the 1 and the 3 first, then divide by 3. 3/3=1.

Paegus
13th May 2007, 18:36
parenthesis are always processed first, but since we're dealing with multiplication and division it'll work out the same in this case
3 * 4 / 5 = 12 / 5 = 2.4
( 3 * 4 ) / 5 = 12 / 5 = 2.4
3 * ( 4 / 5 ) = 3 * 0.8 = 2.4

at no point did i claim that 3*(1/3) ='ed anything other than 1 btw. and it has nothing to do with what calculator you use. most calculators will always give you 0.3... the more advanced once might just give you ⅓ but that usually depends on what you press between the 1 and the 3.

Demented
13th May 2007, 22:13
You can represent 1/3 quite finely in the trinary number system, by the way. It represents as 0.1.

Just because infinity isn't a number doesn't mean an infinite universe can't exist. Otherwise I'd be able to argue that since finity isn't a number, a finite universe can't exist. Can you imagine how silly it would sound going around saying that we are in a "three universe"? Three-dimensional perhaps, but that's describing something entirely different.

Cyborg
14th May 2007, 00:52
parenthesis are always processed first, but since we're dealing with multiplication and division it'll work out the same in this case
3 * 4 / 5 = 12 / 5 = 2.4
( 3 * 4 ) / 5 = 12 / 5 = 2.4
3 * ( 4 / 5 ) = 3 * 0.8 = 2.4

at no point did i claim that 3*(1/3) ='ed anything other than 1 btw. and it has nothing to do with what calculator you use. most calculators will always give you 0.3... the more advanced once might just give you ⅓ but that usually depends on what you press between the 1 and the 3.

speaking mathematically... you should never, if at all possible, give an inexact answer such as .9 recurring. so, how do we solve this problem? we break up the 1/3 fraction by multiplying the three into it first, making the answer 1. that IS the most correct answer.

this has nothing to do with the original point of the thread, however, so i point to demented's post above for discussion to continue.

Demented
14th May 2007, 01:26
0.9 is not inexact. It's equal to 1.
Just as 1.9 is equal to 2 and 1.49 is equal to 1.5.

We just don't use those because it's unnecessarily confusing.
(And because we'd need to admit our basic math is stupidly arbitrary.)

Ging
14th May 2007, 03:47
speaking mathematically... you should never, if at all possible, give an inexact answer such as .9 recurring.

.9 recurring is the most exact answer - next thing you know you'll be saying we should just round PI off to 3, I mean, 3.14 - c'mon, where's the exactness in that?

Mathematically, it's rare to get an exact full number - look at the many constants used in mathematical equations throughout the sciences, Plancks, Faradays, the gas constant, the gravitational constant... None of them have been rounded!

It's utter gibberish that you should never, if at all possible give an answer such as .9 recurring - now, if you're being inexact, than go ahead and round the value, but not if you want the actual answer!

Going back to infinity - you'll find most computers will give you NaN if you attempt to do 1/0 - Not a Number. It's a good sign that's something's gone wrong! (if of course they don't pick up the fact that you're trying to do a silly sum and stop you)



But as has been pointed out elsewhere - there's an issue with which definition of "infinity" you're following, I can think of a couple - mathematics (infinity is any value greater than our finite numbers (either real or natural)) and philosophy / theology - "god is infinite", "the potential of the human mind is infinite", etc, etc.

Either one doesn't provide any real basis for whether or not infinity is a "real" value, it's certainly a conceptual thing, but only usable as an abstract (we have no proof of anything infinite existing) - and, as I said earlier, humans as a whole are inadequate in terms of taking on board the concept and reality of a time line beyond a hundred thousand years or so (a lot of people struggle with the ideas that dinosaurs were around 60~ million years ago - let alone the birth of the universe 13 billion years ago.)

Mr. Bottomhat
14th May 2007, 08:12
0.9 is not inexact. It's equal to 1.
Just as 1.9 is equal to 2 and 1.49 is equal to 1.5.

We just don't use those because it's unnecessarily confusing.
(And because we'd need to admit our basic math is stupidly arbitrary.)
Seems this discussion come to every forum which contains nerds sooner or later. This man is right though.

Doomsiren
14th May 2007, 08:27
i have always seen god as man 48 of age and with a beard. he is dressed in roman like cloth and has curly short hair. and he wears sandals

Demented
14th May 2007, 09:12
But how long is the beard? Is it about throat-long, or knee-long? That has serious religious implications, you know!

Doomsiren
14th May 2007, 09:12
throat long beard

Paegus
14th May 2007, 10:09
to the bottom of his ribcage or i call heretic! we burn them you know...

extra points to those who find the irony in that

Doomsiren
14th May 2007, 10:11
no irony here

Mr. Bottomhat
15th May 2007, 07:27
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b211/Plumbumdeath/raptorjesusyu6.jpg

Demented
15th May 2007, 08:31
Oh, those coloring suggestions hurt. HURT, I tell you.
Anyone who names colors like that should be shot. Then buried. Then dug up and shot again two days later, just to be sure.

Doomsiren
15th May 2007, 10:21
i wont you just kill him and after burie him alive:D

Sil
15th May 2007, 18:18
Hahaha. That's what we call fanaticism.