 |
 |
And a challenge
by Arthegarn on Jan 21, 2002 - 12:29 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
O.K. You won your piece of candy? Let's see. There is a way out of this that allows other real universes to coexist with ours. The first one correctly guessing it wins... let's see... I have already given pieces of candy... I know! A bottle of Absentha, which I believe is not legal in most countries outside Spain.
I hope the first toast is to me...
Arthegarn
|
Re: Inquisitor II: The Revenge
by Devin (devin-at-vibechild-dot-com)
on Jan 21, 2002 - 12:38 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://devin.vibechild.com/
|
I'd like to expand on the idea of the universe being infinite (or not). I don't think there is any question that the universe is infinite, just based on the definitions of the two words. That's like saying 2 is two. If you want to say that the universe is bigger than we think, you can't say that it's not infinite, or that it's bigger than infinate, or that the infinite quality of the universe does not take into account alternate dimensions or realities. To do that, you would either have to change the concepts of infinate and universe - or you'd have to change the definitions of the words.
If we don't have universally understood words to describe these things, then we can not talk about them at all. You can make your own words if you want to exclude people that don't understand them from the conversation (shmeng being a good example of this) - but you can't make up words if you want to have a debate. That is, unless you change the definition of the word debate.
The alternative is to change the concept to fit the language. It sounds like a bigger thing to do, but it's the only thing that works.
If I'm wrong, please let me know. I'd like to change the definition of the word King, so I can say "Devin is the King of the World"
|
Re: Inquisitor II: The Revenge
by Alugarde on Jan 21, 2002 - 02:41 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Ok, for the sake of clarity "energy" is the energy of reality, while a "force" is a combination of energy and binding which is often (incorrectly) referred to as energy.
The thing you're missing with my concept of death is that I said when ENOUGH energy was lost. As energy is lost, health declines, until so much energy (and thus health) is lost that death results. As for my concept of life, your cells are alive, but so are you. Your cells are a part of you, and it wouldnt exactly make sense to say that you're alive but that which is a part of you is not. If someone chops off your arm, the arm dies but you keep living (assuming you can somehow stop the bleeding).
You're also missing the concept when I say the universe is infinitely expanding. I never said that the universe itself was infinite, just that it will continue to expand forever(infinitely). I do, however, accept that the energy is not self-replicating. But to say that there is no cosmic vacuum (the void) is to say that there is yin but no yang. How do you know what is real if you do not know what is unreal? As the energy is spread thinner and thinner it has to go somewhere. As you mentioned earlier the universe should have been a homogenous, the universe seeks balance. When you touch something cold with something hot the thermal force in one and lack thereof in the other are balanced out and the two become lukewarm. Hot seeks to balance cold and vice versa. So why shouldnt it be the same on a larger scale? Wouldn't reality then try to balance out "nonreality"? (represented by the energy spreading itself thinner).
The onion idea is interesting, but think of it this way: As t increases, the onion's surface area (x and y) get bigger. Thus there are spatial limits to the universe, they just continue to expand as time progresses. In other words, x and y are directly related to t. If x and y represent the spatial limits of the universe, then saying that those limits don't change is saying that time is standing still.
|
Re: Inquisitor II: The Revenge
by Abbadon on Jan 26, 2002 - 07:44 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
I don't wish to become involved in this conversation since it is a little silly. I was just hoping to give you some pointers in the hope that with further discussion amongst yourselves you can broaden your minds.
You need to re'read Einstein's Relativity papers along with Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle and Fehnman's Theses before continuing. You are making some fundamental mistakes as to the essential nature of concepts such as the expanding universe, virtual particles and space time as a form of energy. I would be delighted to discuss these aspects of modern physics with you when you have become a little more clear as to the role of the expansion of the universe as an example of how relativity can be applied and other aspects of this subject.
Don't get to worried about this argument however, there are lots more aspects of philosophy for you to worry about. Science is, as all creations of the human mind, not in any way certain, however hard we prove it. So don't take it as a gauge on reality.
Happy thinking, you budding little philosophers. Have fun developing your abstract thought.
And don't forget Wittgenstein:
'If a conclusion is found to a philosophical argument very little had been gained.'
|
Re: Inquisitor II: The Revenge
by Schizo on Feb 01, 2002 - 06:21 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
I think I get a piece of candy! Hooray!
I do love the elusive concept of time. It's something I've been pondering since I was 13 or so.
I've thought of time as the 4th dimention of space. That may be so. But I believe that time has dimentions of its own.
I think that one-dimentional time is a moment. I think we live in two-dimentional time. Not only do we live in it, but we all seem to travel in it, making it impossible to explore the entire plane of time squared. Perhaps other universes inhabit another plane in time.
I think that three-dimentional time is eternity. Many people seem to picture the concept of eternity as a line that extends infinitely in each direction, but I think that belief is founded in error. I believe that eternity is to what we call "time" as a sphere is to a circle.
If we look at the commonly expressed notion of "time" from the outside, so to speak, we see it as a plane. Take, for example, a history book, covering the time known to humans. This is like a map of an area - flat, and extending in all directions. One can open the history book at any point in any human's experience, thus pinpointing a point on the map - a moment. Or you can follow the line of someone's life - time as we experience it. Or you can study the whole book, examining the entire plane of time. Or rather, the square, or circle, or trapezoid, if you will, of time. Of course, a plane is infinite, and we do not have an infinite knowledge of time.
But if we can look at time like that, like a map, from above, that means we are in a different dimention, a further dimention, as well. Obviously, we are to a certain extent locked in the concept of the "time line" travelling along the "time plane". Yet, somehow, we are able to see that line and that plane from a vantage point outside. I believe that this indicates that every entity that can do this is somehow a part of the third dimention of time - eternity. What part of ourselves contains this capability? Is it consciousness? The supernatural spirit that is not made of matter or energy as we understand it? Do animals, plants, or inanimate objects access eternity in the same way? Is there any way to tell this?
Perhaps time truly is an extension of space. In that case, this would be the 4th, 5th, and perhaps 6th dimentions. (I'm not sure of the numbers, since I'm not sure whether to classify a moment as the 4th dimention, or planar (and our linear experience) as the 4th.
I do hope my theories haven't been expressed too enigmatically. They're alot clearer in my head!
I'm afraid I don't have much to say on the discussions of the nature of matter and energy, or the forces that have been talked about here. But since time was brought up, I had to add my two cents worth!
|
|
|
