[WHO]ThemYou can call me DaveJoin Date: 2002-12-11Member: 10593Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Aug 27 2004, 10:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Aug 27 2004, 10:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-[WHO+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([WHO)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Them,Aug 27 2004, 05:26 PM] <!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Aug 27 2004, 03:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Aug 27 2004, 03:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you're saying that energy can leave the universe and that it's not a closed system then you've defiled the second law of thermodynamics as well. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dammit, all the laws of thermodynamics assume that there's one universe. So you can either...
a) agree that there aren't an infinite number of universes.
or
b) stop trying to cite laws that don't apply. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, the second law of Thermodynamics functions in a closed system. Obviously if energy can leave the universe, then it's not a closed system. Therefore the law would be wrong. The law isn't wrong, your <b>theory</b> is. Stop calling the laws wrong, the laws aren't changing.
The second law states that in a closed system, "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is entropy. A car won't magically refill its own gas tank - you have to refill it. Your body won't replenish its own energy until you put food energy into it. Likewise, the universe has the exact same amount of energy that it did when the big bang happened. If the universe was not a closed system, and it is, then the universe will either:
A) Become a source of infinitely increasing power until SOMETHING happens.
B) Lose energy until there's very little left. IE: Everything burns out and dissapears.
SECONDLY, the law of conservation of matter states that mass cannot be created or destroyed. If I annihilate an asteroid, I've simply turned it to vapor. It's still there. If I combine two atoms of hydrogen, I've simply created helium. It's still the same as two hydrogen atoms.
THIRD, the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be converted. If I tip a glass of water over, I've simply turned potential energy into kinetic energy.
FOURTH, the FIRST law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be destroyed. Ever.
So simply put, we have three laws that state that <b>within a closed system, nothing can be created, and nothing can be removed</b>. If multiverses were capable of, as you claim, destroying each other, then you'd remove a realm of energy - Obviously existance is in a universe. Yet you're saying that it's possible to exist outside a universe? Destroying a universe would leave a lot of mass, matter, and energy with no where to go. Since a universe is a closed system, I'd like you to explain where all that energy is going to go.
You're stating that you alone are <b>right</b>, and that despite hundreds of years of science, they're all <b>wrong</b>. Since you've already pretty much showed you're an athiest, I can only assume you're an idiot <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This would be so much easier if you would actually read what I type.
I'm aware that the laws of thermodynamics apply to a closed system. This creates 2 possibilities of a closed system for which I am discussing.
1) There is only 1 universe, in which case I'm done talking because that's the point I'm trying to prove.
2) The multiverses as a whole are the closed system. They are allowed to interact with eachother.
Now, if you're still following me, I know I use big words and all, but it's not that hard to follow......
I would like to point out again that I am trying to DEBUNK the multiverse theory.
Since the big crunch is a possibility in this universe, then the possibility of a simultaneous big crunch within all universes simultaneously is a possibility. And if that is a possibility, then there exists a possibility of one single event triggering such a massive crunch. And if there are infinite multiverses, then there is an infinitely high chance that such an event will happen, which would make it a certainty. Now if such an event were a certainty, then the event would happen at all possible points in time (again because of infinite multiverse theory).
Now, here's the kicker. That means it did happen, is happening, and will happen every moment for the rest of time. And since such an event hasn't happened, then somewhere along the multiverses, there is an end.
So, once you think you've read that, read it again. Then read it one more time, and again for good measure.
Okay, I see what you're saying, but then there's just a dead end to this: I believe that multiverses cannot act outside themselves. When I get my Scientific American, there's actually a measurement for the range of multiverses, and it explains a lot of this a hell of a lot better then I can. You believe multiverses CAN act outside of themselves. *Shrug* Since we can't prove either (yet), we might as well start fighting about whose god can beat up whoms (BTW: Buddha would kick your ****)
By the VERY SAME LINE OF REASONING there are an infinite number of counter-annihilations taking place at every point in time to undo what that annihilation event is doing. Hence the net result is zero (no change).
In a set of infinite multiverses you cannot have it one way (absolute destruction) without having it the other (absolute creation).
Debunking is a very bad tactic to use. Scepticism always works better in a debate.
[WHO]ThemYou can call me DaveJoin Date: 2002-12-11Member: 10593Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-Cronos+Aug 27 2004, 11:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cronos @ Aug 27 2004, 11:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ....there are an infinite number of counter-annihilations taking place at every point in time to undo what that annihilation event is doing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Damnit..... Well, you have cooties. So, nyah.
I guess I'll drop infinite destruction and go back to my old tool for arguing against infinite universes. It's not new, but I'm going to state it anyways because I want people to know where I stand now.
If infinite universes exist, then in one of them..... Star Wars *happened*. In another, Star Wars happened and someone got it on tape without any of the participants knowing about it. In another, someone shot a documentary about the guy that got Star Wars on tape without people noticing. In another, all of that happened while someone was already watching a tape of when star wars had happened previously in that universe.
Not only did star wars happen, but Star Trek also happened in another universe.
Not only that, there is a universe in which Star Trek and Star Wars occurred together (albeit in different galaxies).
Not only that, there are universes dominated by Ewoks, and others By Tribbles.
NOT ONLY THAT! There are also universes in which the Ewoks and the Tribbles are in fact competing Empires, developing new weapons of mass cutefication. The war of the cute, as it were, continues not only now, but at all points along infinity for an infinite duration an infinite number of times for infinity.
INSANITY FOR THE WIN! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
{Edit}
On the bright side, this also means theres a universe in which the Transformers DO exist. Awesome <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Wow, if you wanted to put words in my mouth, you coulda just asked for my forum account there EEK....
I didnt claim you should accept my beliefs, I merely pointed out that if you believe that science explains everything, then you shouldnt believe this, as its philosophy - right down there on the same level with religious theories.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Question: "Religion, if god is all-loving, then how come there's so much suffering in the world? How come we've never proved his existance? Why did God create other galaxies, stars, and nebulae, when, before eating the Tree of Knowledge of Right and Wrong, we would never have created the inventions to explore those bodies, since a vast majority of our technology is military in origin?"
Response: "God works in mysterious ways. Man cannot fully understand the concept of God, which is why we have faith."
Counter-Response: "Isn't faith the act of believing in something, no matter how ludicrous, false, misproven, flawed, or harmful it is?"
Counter-Counter-Response: "Don't ask dangerous questions or you'll go to hell."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a nice strawman you got yourself there. It even has my eyes and cute button nose, along with a tag saying "Marine01 = teh stupid religious fanatic". And like all strawmen, it has little to no real substance. Perhaps you werent around for these two threads, allow me to point them out. <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=48020&hl=accuracy&st=15' target='_blank'>On the accuracy and consistency of the Bible</a>, <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=48656&hl=accuracy' target='_blank'>Arguement from evil, if God's so powerful, why evil?</a>. Please note that I started both threads.
To quote myself, and put a match to this particular strawman:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well I'm trying to defend the Bible without "Well, he is God so he could make it happen in definace of everything logic tells us" because that is an arguement purely from Faith. And its impossible to argue against faith. And thats what this thread is for, friendly arguementation or discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clearly the typing of an irrational religious fanatic....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What I'm saying is that Marine01 is saying that science is flawed because they don't have the answers <b>yet</b>, and that religion is right because you're never supposed to ask the questions that would prove just as flimsy as reasons why electron bonds are so strong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didnt say science was flawed, I just said that this multiverse theory isnt scientific, its philosophic. Nor did I say religion is right because your not supposed to ask questions, but I will admit your version is certainly more entertaining, all it needs to complete it is a picture of me in Crusader armour putting a sword through a Muslim womans neck.
I didnt know that pointing out the difference between the fields of philosophy and science was so entertaining. I am currently doing a Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland - and have the utmost respect for the scientific method and many of its conclusions. The point which you are so desperate to avoid here is that ultimately, some sort of law must be controlling the behaviour of this universe at some very basic level.
I'm not denying gravity, or that there are effects eg spinning bodies that cause it, I'm just saying that if you break it down far enough, there is a law guiding the behaviour of whatever causes it. Atoms always exist, they dont wink in and out of existance. Why not? Why dont they dissappear, then reappear, then group up and make flowers? Because there seems to be laws and guidelines within which these atoms operate - things they dont do and never will, things they will do with consistency given a specific circumstance. I think there is some underlying fundamental controlling principle.
Marine01 has VERY SELDOM played the "who can understand the mind of God" card, and when he does its not a "You shouldnt ask stupid, men cant understand God", its "I guess this is one of those times where I have to rely on faith in a God that knows what he's doing".
Has anyone ever wondered that some things just shouldn't be known? Like... to anyone?
... Ever?
We will never <i>really</i> figure out what made that apple drop from that tree, so dont bother kidding yourself that there's a solution; because, like this post, there will always be a infinite number of solutions, and problems spawned from that solution. The problem will continually stretch on and on (probably into infinity) of "what causes gravity?" and "how is energy maintained in the universe?" so im just going to give up and say this one last thing:
Does it really matter? Really? If i told you the gravitational constant of EVERYTHING was 0.1, and that that was the absolute truth, <u><b>WOULD IT MATTER?</b></u> No, because your head will <i>still</i> crack open if you jump, head first, from a 20 floor building's roof. No, because your reaction time <i>still</i> isn't good enough to dodge that bullet's tragectory to your cranium that's been fired at point-blank range. No, because you will <i>still</i> know that you'll cease to exist as what you are now some day.
Even [<i>if</i>,] the gravitational constant of <u>everything</u> is 0.1...
None of this is real. While I'm not suggesting we are all strapped in some place getting fed sensory information from a gigantic computer, I am saying that things may not be real at all.
Descartes tried to make a connection between what your brain perceives and the "real world." He couldn't. There was no way for him to prove that the thing he was touching and feeling actually was that object. Assuming some mad scientist wanted to trick you into seeing the world as it is, and not as the truth, how would you know? The problem was substance (the "real" world stuff).
Berkley solved the problem of substance by simply saying that there was no substance. Everything we perceive exists, and everything we don't perceive does not exist. According to him, simply by "thinking" of a room or a person or whatever else, it would suddenly exist. If you left your house and then didn't think about it, it would physically disappear. When you return, your house would be back where it was, because you were "perceiving" it. Furthermore, (here is the real kicker) all these perceptions that make things exist aren't held by you. No. In fact you only exist because God perceives you. So in a way or another, we're part of God's imagination. Make any sense?
Read the part I wrote about Simulated universes <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Does this signal a trend here? Are my posts surrounded with [IGNORE][/IGNORE] tags that I cannot see?
Maybe. Damn world out to get me <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
well, since we haven't discovered anything that can travel faster than light yet, the event would probably propagate at the speed of light, so it could be collapsing lots of universes and not get to us for a while. Or, in the case of the infinite-multiverse theory, never get to us because there are infinite -verses between us and the causal -verse.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Consider that there is only one true Universe, and in that universe intelligence arose.
Like us they would develop a system whereby they might begin to create an accurate representation of their universe by finding out the relationships that govern it (E=MC^2, etc).
Consider that at some point, they would begin to simulate universes with some of their fundamental relationships altered, so instead of E=MC^2, they may create one with E=MC^4, or E=MC, or perhaps even E=M^C (That would be QUITE an interesting universe indeed ).
The point is; There are many many many many universes in which intelligent life can simply not evolve.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you referring to this post, Cronos? Pardon me for being a little on the dim side, but I don't understand the connection. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You simulate a universe that is almost, but not quite like yours. Naturally you speed up the simulation so that you can see the results of the simulation within your lifetime.
If you were an object in this simulation you would find it as real as anything else you know because it is ALL you know. If intelligent life arose in the simulation (assume it's VERY detailed simulation) then said intelligent life would run simulations as well to find out how their universe (a simulation) worked.
As time goes on, more simulations are run in both the one true universe and the exponentially increasing number of simulations, and because each simulation is sped up such that the intelligent life in each simulation can see the results within their life time...
Well, lets say that the first simulation takes a total of 3 months. The birth, life and death of a universe.
In the first 12 seconds (arbritrary figure) we get to present day earth. After a few femto-seconds, we have a galactic empire running thousands of simulations on how the universe works and those simulations are running simulations, and those simulations are running simulations, and so on, and on and on and on.
Now if there are a finite number of other universes, this number of simulated universes could increase even faster, and suppose that not one, but thousands, possibly millions of simulations are ran in each universe and you get thousands of trillions of simulated universes cropping up quite quickly.
Now, there are only a small finite number in which life can exist. The reason is our laws of physics.
Alter the Strong Nuclear force a bit one way and the sun exhausts it's nuclear fuel and goes nova in seconds. The other way and it would never radiate enough energy to heat a molecule let alone a planet.
Alter another law and the big bang starts spawning supermassive black holes that devour all the protomatter before it gets a chance. In yet another, matter as we know it may not even exist (everything is wave for example and no concession is made for matter at all). There are so many things stacked against life it may in fact be an abberation to the norm.
Hence all of this could indeed be a simulation which will one day dissapear because the main computer has been reset and all the simulated universes within universes go **poof** with it. However because we live in a hyperaccelerated state with respect to the universe simulating ours it's most likely we'll be long dead and the universe will have sunk into infinite entropy by the time that happens...
Then you are suggesting we are part of a simulated universe, and that all we are is just AI? I don't think I buy that. First of all, because I don't think I'm a computer program and secondly, we would have to be running a simulated universe before we'd fit the bill.
a lot of people have been saying "E = MC^2," this is a law of the universe, how can it be a law with no governing body. then again, you must ask yourself, what is mass? mass is E/C^2. There's not a concrete definition. I mean, you can make it sound all technical, but in the end, mass is just a way <b>we</b> look at things. It's hard (or impossible) to imagine looking at the world in an entirely different state of mind than mass, weight, etc, but an alien civilization would have their own "rules" that don't use concepts like mass. The "Laws of Physicis" aren't really laws governing the universe, it is ways we make the universe governable in our minds.
That's true. According to the theory E=MC^2, all mass is is just frozen energy. We made the term mass, because scientists had no idea of this when theories were just being formulated. Who would have thought that mass is just frozen energy?
In that perspective though, I imagine we'd be able to accomplish much more if we head in that direction (simple technological advances for the near future like transferring energy via satellite so batteries would be obsolete, and then later technological advances like teleportation).
Rules benefit nobody but ourselves. It's only when we try to break those rules do we start to understand the way things really work.
And cronos, it is an interesting theory, and perfectly possible, though that completely shoots religion in the foot. Not to make this into a religious thread, but are you suggesting that our god is merely a video game designer creating a simulation world in a bigger more complex universe?
In one respect it does shoot religion in the foot but from another perspective, who is to say that any god would be subject to the bounds of our universe alone?
It's very plausible that he's a researcher in the universe "above" our own running our simulation. He could very well care about us, like a person cares about his personal artworks. Every legend myth or religion has a basis in fact and the truth is ultimately always stranger then any fiction.
The theory does not necessarily shoot religion in the foot though, anymore then a round earth or an infinite universe can. We may exist on a mortal coil but it is a mortal coil with the exceptions of a beggining and an end that will come about as the starter universe wraps up it's simulations and switches them off. Of course when that happens we'll be long long dead, and the guys living only in memories in the far off future when entropy has reached a maximum will also be long dead.
Well, while it is possible, I do not believe it to be the case. It reminds me of this story I heard of a woman that claimed the world was supported by a huge tortoise. A man asked her, "What is underneath the tortoise?"
She replied, "Ah, very clever, but you see it's tortoises all the way down!"
It is possible, I just don't believe it to be so. Who simulated the first universe then? God? It makes god out to be simply another "level" in the chain of traversing universes.
Then where did god come from? It's the tortouise thing. Not to turn this into a religious thing but I am firmly atheist until someone came scientificaly prove to me that a 'higher being' exists.
Aside from this, can anyone explain God to me(Religion doesn't matter, most religions beleive in a central diety anyway + a messaih of some sort)? PM will do since it might be off topic here.
Comments
Dammit, all the laws of thermodynamics assume that there's one universe. So you can either...
a) agree that there aren't an infinite number of universes.
or
b) stop trying to cite laws that don't apply. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, the second law of Thermodynamics functions in a closed system. Obviously if energy can leave the universe, then it's not a closed system. Therefore the law would be wrong. The law isn't wrong, your <b>theory</b> is. Stop calling the laws wrong, the laws aren't changing.
The second law states that in a closed system, "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is entropy. A car won't magically refill its own gas tank - you have to refill it. Your body won't replenish its own energy until you put food energy into it. Likewise, the universe has the exact same amount of energy that it did when the big bang happened. If the universe was not a closed system, and it is, then the universe will either:
A) Become a source of infinitely increasing power until SOMETHING happens.
B) Lose energy until there's very little left. IE: Everything burns out and dissapears.
SECONDLY, the law of conservation of matter states that mass cannot be created or destroyed. If I annihilate an asteroid, I've simply turned it to vapor. It's still there. If I combine two atoms of hydrogen, I've simply created helium. It's still the same as two hydrogen atoms.
THIRD, the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be converted. If I tip a glass of water over, I've simply turned potential energy into kinetic energy.
FOURTH, the FIRST law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be destroyed. Ever.
So simply put, we have three laws that state that <b>within a closed system, nothing can be created, and nothing can be removed</b>. If multiverses were capable of, as you claim, destroying each other, then you'd remove a realm of energy - Obviously existance is in a universe. Yet you're saying that it's possible to exist outside a universe? Destroying a universe would leave a lot of mass, matter, and energy with no where to go. Since a universe is a closed system, I'd like you to explain where all that energy is going to go.
You're stating that you alone are <b>right</b>, and that despite hundreds of years of science, they're all <b>wrong</b>. Since you've already pretty much showed you're an athiest, I can only assume you're an idiot <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This would be so much easier if you would actually read what I type.
I'm aware that the laws of thermodynamics apply to a closed system. This creates 2 possibilities of a closed system for which I am discussing.
1) There is only 1 universe, in which case I'm done talking because that's the point I'm trying to prove.
2) The multiverses as a whole are the closed system. They are allowed to interact with eachother.
Now, if you're still following me, I know I use big words and all, but it's not that hard to follow......
I would like to point out again that I am trying to DEBUNK the multiverse theory.
Since the big crunch is a possibility in this universe, then the possibility of a simultaneous big crunch within all universes simultaneously is a possibility. And if that is a possibility, then there exists a possibility of one single event triggering such a massive crunch. And if there are infinite multiverses, then there is an infinitely high chance that such an event will happen, which would make it a certainty. Now if such an event were a certainty, then the event would happen at all possible points in time (again because of infinite multiverse theory).
Now, here's the kicker. That means it did happen, is happening, and will happen every moment for the rest of time. And since such an event hasn't happened, then somewhere along the multiverses, there is an end.
So, once you think you've read that, read it again. Then read it one more time, and again for good measure.
By the VERY SAME LINE OF REASONING there are an infinite number of counter-annihilations taking place at every point in time to undo what that annihilation event is doing. Hence the net result is zero (no change).
In a set of infinite multiverses you cannot have it one way (absolute destruction) without having it the other (absolute creation).
Debunking is a very bad tactic to use. Scepticism always works better in a debate.
Damnit..... Well, you have cooties. So, nyah.
I guess I'll drop infinite destruction and go back to my old tool for arguing against infinite universes. It's not new, but I'm going to state it anyways because I want people to know where I stand now.
If infinite universes exist, then in one of them..... Star Wars *happened*.
In another, Star Wars happened and someone got it on tape without any of the participants knowing about it.
In another, someone shot a documentary about the guy that got Star Wars on tape without people noticing.
In another, all of that happened while someone was already watching a tape of when star wars had happened previously in that universe.
Although this method's only stance is absurdity.
I bet I can win for absurdity.
Not only did star wars happen, but Star Trek also happened in another universe.
Not only that, there is a universe in which Star Trek and Star Wars occurred together (albeit in different galaxies).
Not only that, there are universes dominated by Ewoks, and others By Tribbles.
NOT ONLY THAT! There are also universes in which the Ewoks and the Tribbles are in fact competing Empires, developing new weapons of mass cutefication. The war of the cute, as it were, continues not only now, but at all points along infinity for an infinite duration an infinite number of times for infinity.
INSANITY FOR THE WIN! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
{Edit}
On the bright side, this also means theres a universe in which the Transformers DO exist. Awesome <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I didnt claim you should accept my beliefs, I merely pointed out that if you believe that science explains everything, then you shouldnt believe this, as its philosophy - right down there on the same level with religious theories.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Question: "Religion, if god is all-loving, then how come there's so much suffering in the world? How come we've never proved his existance? Why did God create other galaxies, stars, and nebulae, when, before eating the Tree of Knowledge of Right and Wrong, we would never have created the inventions to explore those bodies, since a vast majority of our technology is military in origin?"
Response: "God works in mysterious ways. Man cannot fully understand the concept of God, which is why we have faith."
Counter-Response: "Isn't faith the act of believing in something, no matter how ludicrous, false, misproven, flawed, or harmful it is?"
Counter-Counter-Response: "Don't ask dangerous questions or you'll go to hell."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a nice strawman you got yourself there. It even has my eyes and cute button nose, along with a tag saying "Marine01 = teh stupid religious fanatic". And like all strawmen, it has little to no real substance. Perhaps you werent around for these two threads, allow me to point them out. <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=48020&hl=accuracy&st=15' target='_blank'>On the accuracy and consistency of the Bible</a>, <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=48656&hl=accuracy' target='_blank'>Arguement from evil, if God's so powerful, why evil?</a>. Please note that I started both threads.
To quote myself, and put a match to this particular strawman:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well I'm trying to defend the Bible without "Well, he is God so he could make it happen in definace of everything logic tells us" because that is an arguement purely from Faith. And its impossible to argue against faith. And thats what this thread is for, friendly arguementation or discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clearly the typing of an irrational religious fanatic....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What I'm saying is that Marine01 is saying that science is flawed because they don't have the answers <b>yet</b>, and that religion is right because you're never supposed to ask the questions that would prove just as flimsy as reasons why electron bonds are so strong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didnt say science was flawed, I just said that this multiverse theory isnt scientific, its philosophic. Nor did I say religion is right because your not supposed to ask questions, but I will admit your version is certainly more entertaining, all it needs to complete it is a picture of me in Crusader armour putting a sword through a Muslim womans neck.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're a joke. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didnt know that pointing out the difference between the fields of philosophy and science was so entertaining. I am currently doing a Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland - and have the utmost respect for the scientific method and many of its conclusions. The point which you are so desperate to avoid here is that ultimately, some sort of law must be controlling the behaviour of this universe at some very basic level.
I'm not denying gravity, or that there are effects eg spinning bodies that cause it, I'm just saying that if you break it down far enough, there is a law guiding the behaviour of whatever causes it. Atoms always exist, they dont wink in and out of existance. Why not? Why dont they dissappear, then reappear, then group up and make flowers? Because there seems to be laws and guidelines within which these atoms operate - things they dont do and never will, things they will do with consistency given a specific circumstance. I think there is some underlying fundamental controlling principle.
Marine01 has VERY SELDOM played the "who can understand the mind of God" card, and when he does its not a "You shouldnt ask stupid, men cant understand God", its "I guess this is one of those times where I have to rely on faith in a God that knows what he's doing".
Like... to anyone?
... Ever?
We will never <i>really</i> figure out what made that apple drop from that tree, so dont bother kidding yourself that there's a solution; because, like this post, there will always be a infinite number of solutions, and problems spawned from that solution. The problem will continually stretch on and on (probably into infinity) of "what causes gravity?" and "how is energy maintained in the universe?" so im just going to give up and say this one last thing:
Does it really matter? Really? If i told you the gravitational constant of EVERYTHING was 0.1, and that that was the absolute truth, <u><b>WOULD IT MATTER?</b></u>
No, because your head will <i>still</i> crack open if you jump, head first, from a 20 floor building's roof.
No, because your reaction time <i>still</i> isn't good enough to dodge that bullet's tragectory to your cranium that's been fired at point-blank range.
No, because you will <i>still</i> know that you'll cease to exist as what you are now some day.
Even [<i>if</i>,] the gravitational constant of <u>everything</u> is 0.1...
None of this is real. While I'm not suggesting we are all strapped in some place getting fed sensory information from a gigantic computer, I am saying that things may not be real at all.
Descartes tried to make a connection between what your brain perceives and the "real world." He couldn't. There was no way for him to prove that the thing he was touching and feeling actually was that object. Assuming some mad scientist wanted to trick you into seeing the world as it is, and not as the truth, how would you know? The problem was substance (the "real" world stuff).
Berkley solved the problem of substance by simply saying that there was no substance. Everything we perceive exists, and everything we don't perceive does not exist. According to him, simply by "thinking" of a room or a person or whatever else, it would suddenly exist. If you left your house and then didn't think about it, it would physically disappear. When you return, your house would be back where it was, because you were "perceiving" it. Furthermore, (here is the real kicker) all these perceptions that make things exist aren't held by you. No. In fact you only exist because God perceives you. So in a way or another, we're part of God's imagination. Make any sense?
I thought I'd share that.
Does this signal a trend here? Are my posts surrounded with [IGNORE][/IGNORE] tags that I cannot see?
Maybe. Damn world out to get me <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If that made any sense.
Like us they would develop a system whereby they might begin to create an accurate representation of their universe by finding out the relationships that govern it (E=MC^2, etc).
Consider that at some point, they would begin to simulate universes with some of their fundamental relationships altered, so instead of E=MC^2, they may create one with E=MC^4, or E=MC, or perhaps even E=M^C (That would be QUITE an interesting universe indeed ).
The point is; There are many many many many universes in which intelligent life can simply not evolve.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you referring to this post, Cronos? Pardon me for being a little on the dim side, but I don't understand the connection. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You simulate a universe that is almost, but not quite like yours. Naturally you speed up the simulation so that you can see the results of the simulation within your lifetime.
If you were an object in this simulation you would find it as real as anything else you know because it is ALL you know. If intelligent life arose in the simulation (assume it's VERY detailed simulation) then said intelligent life would run simulations as well to find out how their universe (a simulation) worked.
As time goes on, more simulations are run in both the one true universe and the exponentially increasing number of simulations, and because each simulation is sped up such that the intelligent life in each simulation can see the results within their life time...
Well, lets say that the first simulation takes a total of 3 months. The birth, life and death of a universe.
In the first 12 seconds (arbritrary figure) we get to present day earth. After a few femto-seconds, we have a galactic empire running thousands of simulations on how the universe works and those simulations are running simulations, and those simulations are running simulations, and so on, and on and on and on.
Now if there are a finite number of other universes, this number of simulated universes could increase even faster, and suppose that not one, but thousands, possibly millions of simulations are ran in each universe and you get thousands of trillions of simulated universes cropping up quite quickly.
Now, there are only a small finite number in which life can exist. The reason is our laws of physics.
Alter the Strong Nuclear force a bit one way and the sun exhausts it's nuclear fuel and goes nova in seconds. The other way and it would never radiate enough energy to heat a molecule let alone a planet.
Alter another law and the big bang starts spawning supermassive black holes that devour all the protomatter before it gets a chance. In yet another, matter as we know it may not even exist (everything is wave for example and no concession is made for matter at all). There are so many things stacked against life it may in fact be an abberation to the norm.
Hence all of this could indeed be a simulation which will one day dissapear because the main computer has been reset and all the simulated universes within universes go **poof** with it. However because we live in a hyperaccelerated state with respect to the universe simulating ours it's most likely we'll be long dead and the universe will have sunk into infinite entropy by the time that happens...
Good theory though.
Remember time is speeded in the simulated universe such that the researchers "Above" us can see the results within their lifetime.
Billions of years in our time may be fractions of a second in theirs.
Each universe is given several concessions;
1. Intelligent life can arise
2. Intelligent life can attain advanced technology
3. Intelligent life does not destroy itself prematurely
4. Intelligent life begins to simulate universe in attempt to understand theirs better
It's early times yet. Give it a few decades, maybe even a century from now and scientists may start to simulate the universe on their computers.
More to say. Must run.
then again, you must ask yourself, what is mass?
mass is E/C^2.
There's not a concrete definition. I mean, you can make it sound all technical, but in the end, mass is just a way <b>we</b> look at things. It's hard (or impossible) to imagine looking at the world in an entirely different state of mind than mass, weight, etc, but an alien civilization would have their own "rules" that don't use concepts like mass. The "Laws of Physicis" aren't really laws governing the universe, it is ways we make the universe governable in our minds.
In that perspective though, I imagine we'd be able to accomplish much more if we head in that direction (simple technological advances for the near future like transferring energy via satellite so batteries would be obsolete, and then later technological advances like teleportation).
Rules benefit nobody but ourselves. It's only when we try to break those rules do we start to understand the way things really work.
And cronos, it is an interesting theory, and perfectly possible, though that completely shoots religion in the foot. Not to make this into a religious thread, but are you suggesting that our god is merely a video game designer creating a simulation world in a bigger more complex universe?
In one respect it does shoot religion in the foot but from another perspective, who is to say that any god would be subject to the bounds of our universe alone?
It's very plausible that he's a researcher in the universe "above" our own running our simulation. He could very well care about us, like a person cares about his personal artworks. Every legend myth or religion has a basis in fact and the truth is ultimately always stranger then any fiction.
The theory does not necessarily shoot religion in the foot though, anymore then a round earth or an infinite universe can. We may exist on a mortal coil but it is a mortal coil with the exceptions of a beggining and an end that will come about as the starter universe wraps up it's simulations and switches them off. Of course when that happens we'll be long long dead, and the guys living only in memories in the far off future when entropy has reached a maximum will also be long dead.
She replied, "Ah, very clever, but you see it's tortoises all the way down!"
It is possible, I just don't believe it to be so. Who simulated the first universe then? God? It makes god out to be simply another "level" in the chain of traversing universes.
Aside from this, can anyone explain God to me(Religion doesn't matter, most religions beleive in a central diety anyway + a messaih of some sort)? PM will do since it might be off topic here.