Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
The Kavli Foundation sponsored an interdisciplinary discussion of the origins of math. What are the origins of math?

They had 2 physicists, a neuroscientist, and a cognitive scientist. The 2 physicists seemed to be taking the stance that the universe is a mathematical construct. They think this because of the fact that everything they do involves mathematics, so they assume that the universe is based on mathematics. I'm not sure I understand just what they mean by that.

The others seemed to feel that we have a cognitive inclination to mathematics, if it is just an intuitive understanding of numbers, even if we don't have words for the numbers. Some cultures don't have words for more than a few numbers, but can express larger numbers in other fashions. Read the link, it will tell more about that.

The non-physicists tend to think that the reason that all of physics is expressed in mathematics is because we have developed a large number of way to calculate different things, then thrown away the ones that don't work.

I tend to go along with the non-physicists on this one. We are just lucky that we have been able to develop mathematical structures that match the universe. We didn't find the mathematical structures that control the universe.

I wasn't sure if this was the right place to put this. It could have gone into the physics discussion. If anybody wants to move it that would be all right with me.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I read the article and associated press when this all first came out and most of us distance ourselves from Max Tegmark's view in science because it is about as unscientific as you get and it ends in an obtuse ending Rev K often ends up in.

What Max Tegmark proposes is a paradox and untestable he asserts that there is only mathematics and everything goes from there.

There is no doubt the universe isomorphic to a subset of mathematics, but does that means it is mathematics. That question is an entirely a different thing and leads to the same paradox and same dead end as Rev K's want for science to study religion.

Paul I suggest you close your eyes and turn away we are about to talk about religion because I need to show a similarity of argument.

Rev K for example wants science to study religion but GOD itself is a paradox and you can easily see that with two typical anecdotes young children often realize and they go like this

1.) If GOD can do anything can god make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.

2.) If GOD knows everything then he knows what I am thinking and what I will do so I have no free will.

Statement 1 clearly shows the logical paradox that is GOD it doesn't get any simpler to see the problem and most children get it. There are usual ways to sidestep the problem by religion and they are well documented

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Unfortunately you can only sidestep the issue by making GOD outside the rules of science so there goes any idea of studying it using science (Sorry Rev K that's the problem).


Statement 2 is a variation because now we have human free will in the mix and you can only resolve the problem and give us free will by limiting GOD's omnipotence or by making GOD decide to be selectively blind to our behavior. Making GOD decide to be selectively blind has some nasty drawbacks again this is well documented

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will


Ok so what has all this to do with Max Tegmark's discussion with mathematics ... well simple you just made mathematics GOD.


The same GOD arguments can be rewritten with mathematics thus

1.) If mathematics can do anything in the universe can mathematics make a rock so heavy it can't lift it. The standard irresistible force paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_force_paradox

2.) If mathematics runs the universe then it knows everything and so I as a human have no free will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will


Bad nonsense science argument even from a scientist with nice letters after his name is still a bad nonsense science argument.

I am glad you put this in NQS Bill because that is where that garbage belongs.

The whole idea that the universe is somehow run and controlled by mathematics is a religion not a science because it is built on exactly the same paradox as having a GOD all these idiots really did was changed the name.

Last edited by Orac; 07/14/13 04:47 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
I don't know that I would have said it the way you did, but I think that you are right. As I sort of said in my first post on this subject, we are lucky that we can use math to describe the way the universe works, but that doesn't mean it is the math that makes the universe work.

Now I am about to invoke a lot of joy in Paul's heart. It is possible to show obviously wrong things with accurate math. But that math has to be based on some inaccurate assumptions. One likely case that comes to mind is string theory. String theory seems to be getting more and more unlikely, but it has some wonderful math backing it up. In the long run I think that string theory is going to fade away, no matter how good the math is.

At the same time the math developed for string theory is proving to be wonderful when it is applied to other areas of physics, so all that string theory research hasn't been a complete loss.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I would put it like that and as bluntly as that .. I considered making a paper called "Max is right mathematics controls the world and the mathematics is created by GOD" to see if Max got the issue smile

As I have explained the science world is a lot different place post 2008 and some of our own scientists have to be bought kicking and screaming to understanding of what science can now rule in and out.

For example we can now with certainty rule out that the universe we live in is a simulation .. why because of EPR experiments which show local realism is incompatible with the observations.

In your simple laymans terms if EPR is dead and I can't specify the position and velocity of a sub-atomic particle then I can't mathematically predict the exact events at the sub-atomic level except by using a quantum computer which is actually bigger than the quantum simulation and at that point the simulation becomes indistinguishable from reality!

So the very fact we can show EPR is dead and buried means we can't possibly live in a simulation and you therefore must have free will.

If you look at the simulated reality argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

=>A decisive refutation of any claim that our reality is computer-simulated would be the discovery of some uncomputable physics, because if reality is doing something that no computer can do, it cannot be a computer simulation.

Science considers we reached that point with the proof that EPR was invalid and hence only a quantum computer bigger than the universe could run such a simulation.

So for people giving up the "solid structured classic universe" may be initially troubling there is a lot more comfort and certainty about what the universe must look like in the scientific answer.

Last edited by Orac; 07/14/13 05:53 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
I never even considered that the universe as a simulation was anything more than science fiction. It is so implausible that I didn't even worry about it. The first thing that crossed my mind was something on the order of "If the universe is a simulation, then what is the simulation running on?" A computer that could simulate just the Solar System would be unimaginably huge. To simulate the whole universe would require something that would pretty much fill the universe, and probably a lot more. And then there is the next question; Where did that computer come from?

I read a lot of science fiction and in terms of the stories I read I accept a lot of things that I know are totally implausible. But when somebody starts trying to push them as real science I just can't accept them.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill
I never even considered that the universe as a simulation was anything more than science fiction. It is so implausible that I didn't even worry about it.


For a scientist that is the most repellent thing you can do reject something because you don't like it (we call that a prior) or you think it is implausible.

Quantum tunneling is implausible BUT it happens.

We don't allow that approach to any suggestion to do so is extremely dangerous.



Originally Posted By: Bill

The first thing that crossed my mind was something on the order of "If the universe is a simulation, then what is the simulation running on?" A computer that could simulate just the Solar System would be unimaginably huge. To simulate the whole universe would require something that would pretty much fill the universe, and probably a lot more.


That was the initial reaction science had but that was not a view shared by computer programmers and they successively pushed the idea and boundary and games like Eve and minecraft pushed the boundaries where they created virtually infinite worlds.

The trick to infinite universe is that you don't have infinite players so you only have to provide detailed micro data in the immediate vicinity of the player (observer) the rest of the universe can tick along in a crass mathematical sense. Thus so long as you have finite players you can have an infinite world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minecraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_Online


As humans we have detailed data on exactly one small patch of the universe.

The unsettling part for science was this was somewhat along the lines QM was describing so the question at a science level was open unless you are rejecting it because you have prior and don't like the answer.


Move forward to 2008 and science can falsify the idea because science can show you can't simulate the universe because QM is now placed as a property of the universe and only a QM computer could fully simulate a QM universe and you can't restrict it to the observer patch mode ... if you want to test yourself why can't you use observer patches on a QM universe?

I will give you a hint ... the act of observing is one directional it creates your reality and in a QM world there is something important about the waveform that is the act of observation.

It was actually attempted to do this in QM, to create what we call a "windowing function" for the observer to a deeper mathematical QM world, but it fails for the answer to the poser above.

If you can't work it out I will give you a bigger hint as the original question was posed in 2000 is Schrödinger's cat now fat? smile

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6791/full/406025a0.html


Originally Posted By: Bill

And then there is the next question; Where did that computer come from?


That is really not a valid question Bill even to someone who believes in GOD one could pose the question "Does GOD have a GOD?", how would they answer it?

It is an ontological argument and you just made a variation of the theme.


Originally Posted By: Bill

I read a lot of science fiction and in terms of the stories I read I accept a lot of things that I know are totally implausible. But when somebody starts trying to push them as real science I just can't accept them.


My complaint to that approach is you are rejecting things based on your like or dislike (priors) rather than any subjective argument and it is inherently dangerous for a scientist to do that.

There are inherently many things in science which seem almost implausible but are real and happen ... I could name hundreds.

One of the most important for the universe is the triple-alpha process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process


To do science properly you really have to leave your emotional bags at the door.

Last edited by Orac; 07/15/13 03:07 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
For a scientist that is the most repellent thing you can do reject something because you don't like it (we call that a prior) or you think it is implausible.

Quantum tunneling is implausible BUT it happens.

And there is the idea of keeping an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. Quantum tunneling is implausible, but it also happens to fall out of QM, just the way so many other things you talk about do. The universe as a simulation doesn't fall out of any theory, it falls out of science fiction.

Originally Posted By: Orac
Move forward to 2008 and science can falsify the idea because science can show you can't simulate the universe because QM is now placed as a property of the universe and only a QM computer could fully simulate a QM universe and you can't restrict it to the observer patch mode ... if you want to test yourself why can't you use observer patches on a QM universe?

I see no problem with a computer simulation of QM. Remember that when you are writing a simulation program you can write anything into it that you want to. That includes things that are impossible in reality. If you are writing a simulation of a scientific process then you want to write it so that the output matches reality. But if you are writing a fantasy game you can make anything happen that you want to, including things that are impossible in reality. Remember in a simulation it doesn't have to really happen, it just has to look like it does.

Originally Posted By: Orac


Originally Posted By: Bill

And then there is the next question; Where did that computer come from?

That is really not a valid question Bill even to someone who believes in GOD one could pose the question "Does GOD have a GOD?", how would they answer it?

It is an ontological argument and you just made a variation of the theme.


I don't know why it isn't a good question. Are you now arguing that there is a god and he created the computer that we are being simulated on?

And then of course if we are being simulated on a computer then we are back to the subject of my original post. A computer simulation is basically a mathematical construct. People who build flight simulators have a lot of high level programmers working to generate the mathematical calculations required to create realistic views in the display. And since you don't believe the universe is a mathematical construct you can't believe that the universe is a simulation.

I realize that you don't believe that the universe is a simulation. But you are making arguments against my statements that agree with you, based on your interpretation of how I reached them. Basically I looked at the idea of the universe being a simulation and realized that the likelihood of its being real was so remote that I could ignore it. Now if somebody could actually come up with something that showed it was possible then I would reconsider the matter. For now the sheer improbability of it is enough to keep me from believing it.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill
But you are making arguments against my statements that agree with you, based on your interpretation of how I reached them.


That is correct I agree with your answer but not your method you got there because you basis is priors that you prefer and I am simply saying be careful doing that.

I understand your argument that follows that you consider it remote and unlikely but again that appears to be a very subjective analysis rather than anything concrete scientifically.

To me you are still asking a rather silly question if we were a simulation

Originally Posted By: bill

I don't know why it isn't a good question. Are you now arguing that there is a god and he created the computer that we are being simulated on?


No Bill I am telling you it is a silly question because it is ontological and can never be answered nor can any version of how the universe comes into being.

The start of the universe is a paradox to which there is no answer and never will be not in religion, not in science and not by any discipline .... it's simply a stupid question.

To create a start point for the universe immediately creates the paradox that there must therefore be something before the start point.

So religion for example says GOD created the universe but then it leaves open the problem if GOD existed before that universe then how did GOD come into being and did another GOD create GOD or are there other GODS?

You simply changed the question and if you lived in a computer simulation asking who created it is as stupid as asking does GOD have a GOD ... there is no way to answer that objectively because we have no data, no evidence and nothing to base and answer on.


Now lets really challenge you see if I can get you to work out possible ways to resolve the start of the universe paradox and I will probably need to give you some help so here is your first hint

Hint 1.) What causes the start of universe paradox?

Last edited by Orac; 07/15/13 06:34 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Hmmmm I was thinking maybe I should have thrown big bang in as well as the current theory from science.

So we have 3 proposed starts to the universe

a) GOD created it
b) Bing bang created it
c) We are a computer simulation

The paradox is they are actually not starts because we have problems which we can list as such

a) Where did GOD come from?
b) What came before the big bang?
c) Who wrote the simulation?

There is only one way to resolve the paradox and it's the only choice really because the paradox is born from this thing and it is that thing I am trying to get you to identify.

Hint 2.) Ask a scientist what came before the big bang.

Bonus hint) Ask Rev K or any religious person what came before GOD.


I should point out I have no intention of solving the start of the universe or offering a view on it ... I just want you to see it stripped down to it's bare bones because it is interesting smile

Last edited by Orac; 07/16/13 03:35 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
Hint 1.) What causes the start of universe paradox?

What beginning of the universe paradox?
Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
A paradox is an argument that produces an inconsistency, typically within logic or common sense.
The beginning of the universe isn't paradoxical, it just isn't understood. That is a totally different thing.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Orac


So we have 3 proposed starts to the universe

a) GOD created it
b) Bing bang created it
c) We are a computer simulation
Wouldn't you necessarily need to define what the Universe is before assuming origin? Has science come to a static conclusion and a position that what they know will not evolve or expand at this point?
I thought it was cute that you intimate the God scenario as an option for science when you made the statement WE have three options.
But seriously. Really? This is where science stands on the universe? Are you sure you are just coming from your own thoughts and beliefs? Do you take the position that you speak for the scientific human collective? You are the authority?
Originally Posted By: Orac

The paradox is they are actually not starts because we have problems which we can list as such

a) Where did GOD come from?
b) What came before the big bang?
c) Who wrote the simulation?

Oh good, the question was rhetorical.
At this point since God and the universe as a definition is not final, we're really looking at the way man looks at things from any belief system. This is more a question of psychic politics.
Originally Posted By: Orac

There is only one way to resolve the paradox and it's the only choice really because the paradox is born from this thing and it is that thing I am trying to get you to identify.

Hint 2.) Ask a scientist what came before the big bang.

Obviously that would be what still exists, unless we suppose the current universe or what is perceived as the current universe has replaced something.
Originally Posted By: Orac

Bonus hint) Ask Rev K or any religious person what came before GOD.

That's not really a hint. It only covers the perspective of something man has defined, or assumed exists without definition. If you assume science has separated the inquiry of origin into spiritual terms as non-scientific, and include your previous claims
Originally Posted By: Orac in post#49167
science is not tolerant at all about what is called science

Then this statement is clearly suspect to scientific definition
Originally Posted By: Orac in post#49160

science doesn't care about GOD or religion

Any perspective linked to human awareness, inside or outside of beliefs or historic perceptions that assume man can or can't see, feel or know something, limits science.

Originally Posted By: Orac

I should point out I have no intention of solving the start of the universe or offering a view on it ... I just want you to see it stripped down to it's bare bones because it is interesting smile


So its not a question per se, and there is no point or paradox. This is instead a philosophical discussion about science and religion as a human foundation in thought that may either enhance or limit perceptibility.

In relationship to perceptibility and mathematical constructs.
What percentage is assumed as far as theoretical success and or absolute success of human perceptibility in defining the universe, (as in stating what it is) based on where you look in time? Or outside of time for that matter, and from where you are looking?


Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
A paradox is an argument that produces an inconsistency, typically within logic or common sense.

an argument that produces or results in inconsistency.
Hmmm. Could it be that some things or some ideas, cannot be narrowed or shrunk to fit into a container that is too small?

Common sense: That sounds like something that is and if its self a paradox. wink



I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill

The beginning of the universe isn't paradoxical, it just isn't understood. That is a totally different thing.


Rubbish there is a paradox and it's blatantly obvious.

INFINITE TIME IS THE PARADOX.

For something to have a start time can not be infinite OR IT IS BY DEFINITION A PARADOX and you can't talk around it or do psychological mumbo jumbo like TT wants it becomes a paradox.

Perhaps show me the start point of an infinitely long line if it isn't a paradox I mean we can define a line much better and more solidly than time.

Religion does the obvious answer it truncates time, ask Rev K and he will answer there is no time before GOD.

As I said strip the problem down to its bare bones

If time is infinite and exists now and always did you have a straight and unresolvable paradox look at your wiki definition again ..... and I say again you want a start point time has to be finite and truncatable (able to be cut).

All 3 proposed solutions truncate time ... you have to there is no other option to have a start point and that was what I was trying to get you to realize.

WHY?

Well there are some interesting developments being worked on time because the above problem.

sneak peak and heads up spoiler
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/14711...rses-in-the-lab
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-space-quantum-satellite.html
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/crit...ime-guest-post/

Last edited by Orac; 07/16/13 03:40 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
N
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
N
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
I'm still of the notion the universe never had a 'start'. Maybe what we know as the universe had a start, but not the whole thing (everything). Our ignorance knows no bounds. A current understanding, does not mean an overall understanding.

To my drug addled mind, big bang is just as credible as giant space ghosts creating it on a whim. Scientists and Creationists aren't so different when it comes to the creation of what we call our universe.

It always has been, it always will be, whatever 'it' is. I'm sure the earth is a universe for something like an ant, but just because that is their current understanding, does not make it truth, no matter how loud the ant screams it at the sky.

Just opinion. Like most everybody else, I've only been here a few decades, and like everyone else, I'm ignorant to the truth because I am mortal.


Laziness breeds innovation
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Orac
Originally Posted By: Bill

The beginning of the universe isn't paradoxical, it just isn't understood. That is a totally different thing.


Rubbish there is a paradox and it's blatantly obvious.

INFINITE TIME IS THE PARADOX.

Everything undefined, unknown or not completely agreed upon is a paradox? Sheesh!
Originally Posted By: Orac

For something to have a start time can not be infinite OR IT IS BY DEFINITION A PARADOX and you can't talk around it or do psychological mumbo jumbo like TT wants it becomes a paradox.

What you can or can't do with something that is not defined doesn't sound very scientific. Doesn't that pretty much close doors to points of view based on human prejudice and belief?
Oh right.. the scientific tenets!
Originally Posted By: Orac

Religion does the obvious answer it truncates time, ask Rev K and he will answer there is no time before GOD.

Not sure about the Rev. Pretty sure I haven't seen any statements by him that there was a time of no time and any point in time for the emergence of God. I'd say you're making a sweeping statement towards religion and narrowing all spiritual understandings of religions into the box you define.
What I experience of religion is that God whether defined or not, never had a beginning, and time was a creation or construct created by God. Basically religion might assume all manifestations, or physical properties emerge from something greater than time, as human perceptions narrow the infinite into finite human qualities that are pasted upon the known reality of our universe as we experience it.
Originally Posted By: Orac

As I said strip the problem down to its bare bones
Maybe a paradox is not a problem, but rather an unknown. Isn't an unknown no longer a paradox when it becomes a known and confusion is rectified? Are scientific principals really based on what's not possible rather than what is or might be possible?
Sheesh. Wonder what the suicide rate is amongst scientists or the life expectancy of a scientist.
Originally Posted By: Orac

If time is infinite and exists now and always did you have a straight and unresolvable paradox.
Unresolvable ? Really? The end, no longer worth exploring or looking into because there is nothing to explore, define or imagine?
I'd say, contemplating the word unresolvable as defined by you, assumes a paradox.
Originally Posted By: Orac
look at your wiki definition again ..... and I say again you want a start point time has to be finite and truncatable (able to be cut).

All 3 proposed solutions truncate time

Hmm I don't see either proposal as you originally stated as finite solutions but rather stepping stones to further understanding
Quote:

a) GOD created it

God needs to be defined. So far by definition God is a paradox. (if we are taking the scientific approach) But then God is not an option if as you say Science doesn't work outside of the scientific box. Basically you (according to your past insinuations) are really throwing the God factor out as a religious contrivance outside of scientific principles and rules.
Quote:
b) Bing bang created it
Ok this might be something that does truncate time. The Bing Bang.. similar to Badda Bing I assume. This is a scientific construct and theory. I'd have to agree here that science has painted itself into a corner? Gosh I dunno, maybe. whistle
Quote:

c) We are a computer simulation ... you have to there is no other option to have a start point and that was what I was trying to get you to realize.
You have to... there is no other option..
Is it me or is this kinda presumptuous. Really? We know this computer exists? Does the computer generate freedom of will, or is human stupidity a program?
Originally Posted By: Orac

WHY?

Why not? Sorry, the computer made me say that.
Originally Posted By: Orac

Well there are some interesting developments being worked on time because the above problem.

Should be interesting what the computer makes man/science dance to this time.. pun intended wink


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Neohippy
To my drug addled mind...I'm still of the notion the universe never had a 'start'. Maybe what we know as the universe had a start, but not the whole thing (everything). Our ignorance knows no bounds. A current understanding, does not mean an overall understanding.
Hey!!! taking drugs may not be such a bad thing.
Concepts in experience and determination may have beginnings and endings, yes.
We seem stuck on time with birth and death, beginnings and endings. Sort of an assumed property of life as we paste it upon the relative realities we design.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
laugh my 1000th post, and I have nothing to say... frown


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Neohippy
I'm still of the notion the universe never had a 'start'. Maybe what we know as the universe had a start, but not the whole thing (everything). Our ignorance knows no bounds. A current understanding, does not mean an overall understanding.


You are trying to dodge the bullet Neo the same as religion does by trying to fob off this universe and send the problem back in time ... but that back in time still has a start.

The answer is I don't care how far you send the problem back "START" has a meaning and it's measurement is time (t=0).

So you have not avoided anything you just tried to change what universe means and hide because it's all to hard and you want to plead we don't understand.

SORRY I CALL CRAP ON THAT ... YOU ARE TRYING TO PLAY WORD GAMES TO AVOID THINKING.

Time decides what is before and what is after, literally it builds chronology so if you want the start of time that is mathematically t=0 on everything there ever was that is by definition "the start"

Noone says you have to know where or how that start is as I said I can't answer that but what is important point and that is time can not be immortal ... it is important you realize that.

Look carefully at a recent science experiment and think .. specifically about how one would test these lab created multiverses and if time starts

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/14711...rses-in-the-lab

Last edited by Orac; 07/16/13 04:32 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
laugh my 1000th post, and I have nothing to say... frown


That's because you won't take a solid position on anything except to say everyone has the right to there own subjective view .... a position in science we couldn't give a rats about.

Science is about taking a subjective position and testing it to see if it is right. The person with the best subjective position on the universe that can't be falsified wins ... you by definition to science are a loser .... just kidding smile


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
N
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
N
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
Originally Posted By: Orac
Originally Posted By: Neohippy
I'm still of the notion the universe never had a 'start'. Maybe what we know as the universe had a start, but not the whole thing (everything). Our ignorance knows no bounds. A current understanding, does not mean an overall understanding.


You are trying to dodge the bullet Neo the same as religion does by trying to fob off this universe and send the problem back in time ... but that back in time still has a start.

The answer is I don't care how far you send the problem back "START" has a meaning and it's measurement is time (t=0).

So you have not avoided anything you just tried to change what universe means and hide because it's all to hard and you want to plead we don't understand.

SORRY I CALL CRAP ON THAT ... YOU ARE TRYING TO PLAY WORD GAMES TO AVOID THINKING.

Time decides what is before and what is after, literally it builds chronology so if you want the start of time that is mathematically t=0 on everything there ever was that is by definition "the start"

Noone says you have to know where or how that start is as I said I can't answer that but what is important point and that is time can not be immortal ... it is important you realize that.

Look carefully at a recent science experiment and think .. specifically about how one would test these lab created multiverses and if time starts

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/14711...rses-in-the-lab



Time only matters to the mortal. And accepting no beginning and no end, does not stop the thinking. As I said, we're basing our notions on what we know, or have discovered. I'm implying there is much more to discover, and there is possibility of infinitely more to discover.

Futurama has a good episode called "The late Phillip J. Fry" which tackles a cyclical universe theory. It's just another way of looking at things, but it does not shut down thought.

I accept you crapping on my opinion, but it does not make you any more 'right' than I am. It's just a way to spur conversation, and perhaps growth.

All it took was some people asking if the earth was really flat...

There was no start, it just always was, in one form or another. To me this is more palatable than magical explosions and imaginary friends with erector sets. They say the 'edge' of the universe, but there (in my mind) has to be something beyond every edge.


Laziness breeds innovation
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Orac
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
laugh my 1000th post, and I have nothing to say... frown


That's because you won't take a solid position on anything

Isn't the fact that I give everyone freedom to experience something the way they want, a solid position?
Originally Posted By: Orac

except to say everyone has the right to there own subjective view .... a position in science we couldn't give a rats about.

Right. Churches and Government think the same way.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5