Master_Keralys Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 Okay, here's the new thread moved from the rationality/irrationality debate. We were talking about the possibilities of an infinite universe, with infinite time (no beginning and no end). The end of the idea so far is still over there (unless a mod wants to move it for us;) ) for those not familira with it. Please post in this thread, not that one. Also, to be clear, this is not a creation vs. big bang debate, and we don't want it to become one. I am asking the moderators to remove any posts that become inflammatory towards that debate; that is an excellent topic but not, I repeat with emphasis not a thread for that topic. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 Ok - I have thought up a fairly involved and long analogy to try and explain how futile I think it is to try and rationalise outside the 'universe' of space and time that we can detect, whether through our own senses, or through any technology we create -and then think you've hit anywhere near the mark. I warn you, this is a bit long, so get your reading heads on. Also, I do touch on areas of theology in here, but I don't want to write this thing out twice, so please don't accuse me of going off the topic of the thread - I think it's relavent to the topic anyway really... Here goes: -------------- Imagine a senario where a kid digs up an ant nest and sticks it inside a big old metal box with some dirt. Now of course, the ants couldn't survive indefinetely without air or a regenerating ecosystem all contained in the box itself, but let's - for the sake of argument - assume that the ants have enough inside the box to survive for several 'generations'. OK - now let's move forward a bit in time. Any ants living at the time of the 'move' into the box are dead, and the only ants alive now have never seen anything outside the metal box. THey have - in the mean time - between them explored every inch of the box. The 'universe' of the ants is the metal box. They have no way of seeing though it, smelling anything outside it etc. etc. They have NO way of detecting: a. What is outside the box. b. Whether anything is outside the box to detect in the first place. As you can probably guess, my analogy is that the metal box 'universe' of the ants can be seen as analogous to the 'universe' that we - as human kind - can 'detect' - whether with our own senses, or with any technology we can produce. OK - now let's imagine that a particular ant - a very intelligent ant - the einstein of ants! - decides to try and work out HOW, WHEN and WHY they ended up within the 'box'. AND - work out not only IF anything is out there, but WHAT...? (Let's assume he's already climbed over the first intellectial hurdle - that there possibly CAN be something outside the box) Let's imagine that through some kind of limited ant-communication, it is common knowledge that the ants used to live in a much bigger area (as far as they would be concerned, they would probably consider this WITHOUT BOUNDRY) and then 'suddenly', they were in a box. ...this could just be considered 'folklore' by some ants - who knows. But since it's some of the only clues the ant has, he considers it to have SOME relavence. ...so the ant concludes that, maybe, they were put into the box 'deliberatly' - by some kind of 'higher being'. OK - so far, so good. This assumption would be correct... The ant also, however, assumes that whoever put them in the box was omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. AFter all, they can create an entire 'unvierse' and keep them inside it. THis is INCORRECT. A human kid may be unimaginably superior to an ant mind, but a human child is certainly NOT a GOD! The ant recalls an occurance in his childhood (probably a couple of days ago or something! lol! How long do ants live?) where everything in the box (the dirt etc.) 'moved'. Most of the ants couldn't understand why it happenned, and didn't give it any more thought. ...but the CLEVER ant decides to ask around and see whether everything moved the same amount, or whether certain 'areas' didn't move so much. ...he asks around, and interestingly, some areas did move more than others. On the 'east' side of the box, (or whatever concept ants have for a particular direction) there was a GREAT upheaval. In fact, many ants died as a result. ...however, on the westside (aaaiiigghht!) there was practically no movement at all. So, the ant theorises that the 'box' - or the 'universe' was TIPPED on it's side. (I told you, this is one f**king smart ant!!) The other ants are amazed by the theory! It makes total sense. ...ok, so now the next question is - WHAT moved the box and WHY? They quickly determine that none of their actions caused the whole universe to tip over!! After all, they didn't do anything different that day. So it must have been some kind of external force. OK - so far, I believe my analogy shows a few things: * FAITH (or as I would refer to it - guesswork) is SOMETIMES going to work out, especially when coupled with rational thinking - i.e. what you make an 'educated' guess to be true sometimes may be true. But other aspects of your 'faith' may not be. To be specific, the ants faith there was a higher intelligence was correct. His faith that this higher inrelligence was all-powerful was FALSE. Ok - so now here comes along an 'agnostic' ant THis is also a fairly intelligent ant, maybe less than the Einstein ant, doesn't really matter. THe important thing is this ant admits that there is NO WAY that you can know what is outside that box. You can quite confidently say there is SOMETHING outside the box - sure. It makes sense. If the box moved, and it obviously wasn't us, then either the box itself is alive and has the ability to move itself, or there is an external power with the ability to move it. Now, they have never seen the sides of the box do anything. THey are just there. Big black walls on all sides. They don't communicate. They don't move. They don't show any signs of 'life'. So, it's safe to assume that the box did not move itself... ...unless the box has TOTALLY different properties on the OUTSIDE than it does on the INSIDE! After all, all the ants can see are the inside. Who's to say that the box isn't some super-solid cavity insode some other living creature. For most of the time, it stays dorment. BUt for SOME reason, that day - it decided to move... Now for my second point: HAVING AN OPEN MIND IS ALSO NO HELP TO UNDERSTAND THINGS TOTALLY BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION OR EXPERIENCE. The 'creature' idea may seem really open-minded and radical to some ants, and maybe some buy it. ...but the Agnostic ant does not accept this explaination. To him, guesswork is only as good as it can be verified. Guesswork with NO way to verify it is just that - a guess. And as such, is pointless to 'cling' to. So, what does the Agnostic ant do? He admits that there are two possibilities: a. We will NEVER be able to see or experience anything outside the box - in which case we will only guess and have 'faith' as to what is out there. If there is anything 'intelligent' outside, and it decides to give us more 'clues' - or, who knows - even LET US OUT OF THE BOX - then we will know. But that's not up to us, or within our control... b. WE FIND A WAY TO EITHER SEE 'THROUGH' THE BOX, OR GET OUT OF THE BOX. Then we can know for sure what is there. Since the Agnostic ant knows A is out of his control, he throws all his energies into B. he gnaws away at the edge of the box. Other ants may laugh at him 'Haha - the edge of the universe is IMPENETERABLE! We've tried for generations to get through it! Why are you gnawing away at it?! lol' If he has some concept of technology, he may try and build a mechanism, or a device to try and see through or break the barriers of the universe. The bottom line is, he does not accept he has to rely on guesswork to determine the truth. The Agnostic ant will listen to the various theories, and maybe he even has a favourite one which he likes (maybe the idea that the world outside the box is entirely made out of sugar! MMMM - yum!!) - but he DOESN'T ever say 'I know this theory is true' or 'that theory is true'. He will only ever say he knows the minute he can see, smell and taste the outside of the box himself. Until then, the Agnostic Ant simply does not know one way or the other... I know I've slipped into a bit of Agnostic 'preaching'. Sorry! But it is relavent to this thread. We want to try and rationally talk about what exists or doesn't exist outside our universe -or whether the universe is infinite... Or we want to talk about what did or did not exist BEFORE our universe started, or whether time is in fact infinite... ...I believe this is JUST a theoretical exersise. I do not believe any theory besed on our limited experience. We have to SOMEHOW find a way to DETECT past the current boundries of our concepts of space and time before we can even try and KNOW. Until then, theorising and guessing ALONE (rationally or irrationally) is not going to give you the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted October 17, 2003 Author Share Posted October 17, 2003 ...I believe this is JUST a theoretical exersise. I do not believe any theory besed on our limited experience. We have to SOMEHOW find a way to DETECT past the current boundries of our concepts of space and time before we can even try and KNOW. Until then, theorising and guessing (rationally or irrationally) is not going to give you the answer. Well said. There is no way with current tech and whatnot to see beyond the bounds of the universe. Moreover, it doesn't matter how far back in time we can see, all we can see is the universe. Period. There is no way of seeing past the BB, and at that point everything is a singularity. Until we can somehow tunnel out of our universe (either physically or otherwise), we can't know if there is something else definitively. Again, this is disturbing to many people. That's okay, to quote Einstein (with a little paraphrasing), The universe isn't limited to what humanity can understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 I think it's worth mentioning that we HAVE been at these kinds of boundries before. We used to think the 'sky' was the boundry of the universe. Or at least the bounds of the 'rational' universe. Past that, it was the realm of the gods, or the devils - or whatever. But we coudlnt' just 'travel' there by 'mortal' means... The myth of Icarus describes a man TRYING to think 'outside the box' and saying -'hey, why not TRY and see if the sky is ACTUALLY the boundy of our universe'. ...of course, first of all, the idea of flying with a pair of wings made of feathers strapped to your arms - from a jumpstart - is irrational enough (or is it...?! lol), regardless of the part where he flies close enough to the sun to get his wings burnt!! (Of course the creator(s) of this 'myth' would not have considered the possibilities. They would have no hope of convieving of the 90-million mile wide gulf of insurviveable vacuum Icarus would have had to have crossed for the story to be true!! ) Then, we worked out that - actually - there were things 'up there' which followed rational patterns of movement. i.e. not incomprehensible Gods, but bodies that follow the same patterns we can see here on 'rational' earth. So we come to the concept of the solar system - even though we nievely put the earth at the centre of it! But at least we've managed to extend the boundry a bit. So it's not the theorising in the first place that I'm critizising. I have no problem with the idea that there is - INDEED -SOMETHING past the big bang. I would no more critisise theoretical Icarus for his attempt to reach the sun. Who I WOULD critisise is anybody who thinks they know what the answers to the universe are through PURE reasoning, without any kind of rational measurements or 'data' -whether religious or non-religious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 18, 2003 Share Posted October 18, 2003 I've just thought of an interesting twist to my 'Ants-in-metal-box' analogy... ...let's theroise - for the moment - that these ants in the box did not have the ability to actually climb the walls of the box for some strange reason... ...or just imagine that these are a different kind of small creature that couldn't scale the walls.... ...anyway, they could very well believe their 'rational' universe is only on the BOTTOM of the box. All they can detect at the edges of the box are walls which go up some unknown distance. Now comes along 'open-minded' ant who says: 'Why are you other ants so bogged down with the idea that this box has a top at all? If you open your mind a bit, you could reach the 'obvious' conclusion that THERE IS NO TOP!! The walls on all sides of us just carry on up - and on and on into infinity...' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 18, 2003 Share Posted October 18, 2003 Can a truly infinite universe be expanding? Missed this point earlier... it's a good one. Man, my head is starting to hurt again!! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 18, 2003 Share Posted October 18, 2003 Cosmos Jack, My replies to your comments from the rational thinking thread: Thanks for telling me things I already know; though, I will add this. If you want to go with the "BIG BANG?" Yes all the matter that is in the universe was compressed to a object smaller than a proton. The big bang didn't create anything that wasn't already there. It was the begining of this universe not the begining of matter. That is excepted part of the "Big Bang theory." So like I said all matter that has existed always existed even before the big bang. First of all, I mentioned the big bang so that we could both have a reference point of discussion. Instead you seem to have turned it into some point of contention, quite unnessesarily I might add. I'm sorry if you found my description of the big bang theory 'insulting' because you already know it. Seems a trivial thing to get insulted over though if you don't mind me saying so, especially since I have no way of knowing exactly what you do and don't know apart from the things you happen to have posted before... ...you sound like someone with a bit of a permament chip on their shoulder. For whatever reason. But anyway... Yes, indeed, The Big Bang theory has NOTHING to do with how matter was created - it never has. I know you've already said this, but you seem to be implying that because I mentioned the big bang, I'm trying to say 'This is when I think matter was created'. ...I never said any such thing, neither did I come anywhere near implying it. The big bang theory is about mapping out the 'history' of the matter that we can detect within our current understanding of the 'universe'. It makes NO predictions in and of itself as to where the matter come from in the first place - this is NOT any part of the theory. ...people like to imply their own truths FROM the big bang theory - but that's a different matter. I certainly did not make any assumption - in fact I have made it quite clear right from the beginning that I don't believe in stating assumptions as if they are fact. If it does collapse all matter would be compressed to a tiny point like the one the big bang started with. With this theory the "BIG BANG" could happen again and again and again...... As far as I know, the latest data seems to indicate that the matter of the universe is NOT going to be pulled back to a singularity i.e. the universe is going to continue expanding forever. How reliable that is though...? :shrug: But anyway, IF all the matter in the universe WAS eventually pulled back to a singularity, what makes you think ANOTHER big bang would be triggered...?! And even if this is the case, then the infinte backwards time paradox is then STILL valid. Unless you think a different 'concept' of space-time other than our own could be created from the expansion of the same matter... So in all unknown logic a universe not to unlike this one most likely existed before the big bang. Assuming the universe will collapse in on itself... You are free to think this, and I would have no idea whether you are wrong, or right. But, this is pure, unadulterated speculation with NO rational basis. I will remind you the most excepted ideas in science are not always right. Scientist once believe the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around this. This was excepted as more than theory, but fact. The best observations are not always correct. Answers aren't answers if they just lead to questions. If you were a little kid and someone gave you a 10X10 mile wide play ground to play in full of toys and candy? Would you tie yourself to a pole and run around in a 10 foot circle? Answers aren't answers if they just lead to questions. I will just leave my out of the box thinking where it is and say no more.... If you read my posts carefully, you will see that I DO NOT critise 'open-minded' theoretical exersises concerning the origins or boundries of everything. i.e. I have NO problem with you, me or anybody else trying to think OUTSIDE the box. WHat I DO critisise is thinking that just because your theory makes sense to you, you fall into the trap of thinking it's likely, or probable. ...I'm sorry, I'm afraid I disagree. Your just like an ant trapped in a box (Just like I am). You have no more way of knowing what's past or outside our observable universe than the ants can know what is outside their box. Put it this way - even Stephen Hawking, even though he also likes to theorise about the TRUE origins of matter and 'everything' - clearly admits that any ideas that HE has which currently rely on observations we simply cannot make yet are not any more likely to be true than anybody elses ideas. That is both the arrogance and the humility of his craft. Admitting your just an ant in a box, and yet you are trying to break your way into the realm of the Gods... THe only way your theories can have any 'rational' backing is when our ability to observe and comprehend fundementally increases. The initial theorising helps us to make the leap in the first place - but almost certainly the theory you held BEFORE our comprehension increased will not actually pan out as you planned.. Another trap you fall into is over-using the theoretical 'tool' of INFINITY. Constructing the concept of 'infinity' was a great leap forward in theoretical and mathematical thinking. As the numbers we were working with get bigger and bigger and bigger, suddenly it hits us: 'Ahhhh - what IS the biggest number?! What if there isn't actually a limit to how high the numbers can go..!!' Infinity helps us in many ways to get around many mathematical issues. And I think humans can take some pride in having become 'smart' enough to even conceptualise such a concept. ...but please be aware that just because we now have the ability to 'invisage' infinity, DOESN'T mean it actually DOES exist in 'real' terms when we 'assume' or it 'makes sense' to us that it does... That's not me limiting the universe to my little, puny, human ideas! That's just stating a fact! Infinity is just one of a many number of intellectial 'tools' we have at our disposal to try and help us rationalise the world around us. And infinity is a POWERFUL tool. (In the same way that God is a powerful, intellectual tool. In fact, the concept of God is inter-twined with infinity - INFINITELY powerful, INFINITELY aware etc. etc.) The concept of infinity can magically make ALL KINDS of rational problems just 'go away'. It's like a quick 'intellectual' fix that can be easiely and quickly 'plastered over' many of our biggest rational problems. But please realise that that's ALL it is - a theroetical fix. If you have no rational 'data' or 'observation' with which to try and justify your theory - that is ALL IT IS - an unproven, unsubstantiated THEORY. In short, your idea that the source of matter is SOLVED with the concept of infinity is - technically - no more rational than the 'religious' person who uses the idea of 'God' to solve it. Reading your replies all I can say is this. I hit my ball of an idea to the far left of the baseball field and both of you ran to the far right.. 9/10ths of your responses had nothing to really do with what I type. you are free to believe that if you like... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted October 18, 2003 Share Posted October 18, 2003 Maybe (like CTBD said) it never ends... although its hard to imagine... how does it never end??!! We (people) have an end (death, not commenting on life after death) and all places around us have an end... our own galaxy ends somewhere. IT doesnt extend forever... I dont think people can comprehend that. Like things not having a beginning, its impossible for a human being to imagine what it would be like to have always been there.... no beginning just there. We cant really truly understand it, because we havnt experienced it. (i dont believe it was always there) anyways, then theres the part where there could be nothing out there, past the universe. What would nothing look like anyways? I dont get it. When i make a map for jk2 or ja, the "universe" is the map, its like a huge complicated box. Of course, with cheat codes you can leave the walls that surround you, and go into the "void" which is basically endless space... supposidly going on forever. Have you ever tried "noclip" theres nothing out there at all. In the map editor, its just grey out there, and nothing else (eldritch knows what im talking about, hes better at mapping than me thought) just thought id say something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 18, 2003 Share Posted October 18, 2003 Luke, I need to clarify - I'm NOT saying it never ends. Neither am I saying it DOES end. ...I'm fully admitting that I don't know. And we may NEVER know... If you weren't implying that was my belief - but just referring to what I metioned as a theoretical theory - I apologise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted October 18, 2003 Share Posted October 18, 2003 If you weren't implying that was my belief - but just referring to what I metioned as a theoretical theory - I apologise... I wasnt, i was just basically saying, it could never end, and it could... i dont know either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 CTDB just loves those long sophisticated posts directed to understanding say of a single matter such as: "We should not talk about assumptions as if they were facts". Although in practice literally we would always talk about them as if they were facts, the difference would be only for those who know that these "facts" are only assumptions. Well I guess we can truelly truelly talk only about syllogisms: facts are facts, assumptions are assumptions. There is a russian saying and a lot of similar sayings all over the world, translating from russian it sounds like this: "Curtness is a sister of a talent". Someone here needs to learn how to use it (don't stare at me, I don't know how to use it) CTDB: HAVING AN OPEN MIND IS ALSO NO HELP TO UNDERSTAND THINGS TOTALLY BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION OR EXPERIENCE. The other thing here is how can you tell anything to be beyond our comprehension or experience in principle? Master_Keralys Period. There is no way of seeing past the BB, and at that point everything is a singularity. Until we can somehow tunnel out of our universe (either physically or otherwise), we can't know if there is something else definitively. We can't see atoms unless they fall into our eyes but we seem to "know" quite a lot about them. Singularity is a temporal problem not concerning singularity as an abstraction itself. Any can't-knows our only about present moment. This word "singularity" just temorary fills the gap of understadning. By the way, all statements about "we can't know something" is just the same assumption presented as a fact. I suggest we try to use words such as "seem" there. CTBD: As far as I know, the latest data seems to indicate that the matter of the universe is NOT going to be pulled back to a singularity i.e. the universe is going to continue expanding forever. How reliable that is though...? :shrug: It is also only a matter of assumption. How close our universe is to the limit from where it should expand further or collapse is still not so accurate. Either way if it's even a piece of a bit lower than the limit it would still collapse, just it will take more time exponentially to do so (and we'll have more 2 or 3 billions of year. Great News!). And of course if you read about Tipler's omega-point, you won't start running along the treets of your city screeming:"The universe will collapse, we're all gonna die!" (Perhaps won't ) Luke: Of course, with cheat codes you can leave the walls that surround you, and go into the "void" which is basically endless space... supposidly going on forever. Have you ever tried "noclip" theres nothing out there at all. In the map editor, its just grey out there, and nothing else (eldritch knows what im talking about, hes better at mapping than me thought) just thought id say something... This is just the way you see it. And there is nothing more to see here (only to reevalueate). Although the analogy is not the best coz even Maya is limited to finite numbers (not mentioning 3dsmax, gmax or milkshape), your abstractive vision of infinity is correct to the point where your emotions get in the way. That's the same as talking afterdeath when knowing that death physically is shouldn't be so different from falling asleep. Excellent thread by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Since you don't like big, overly-long replies H (although I COULD argue that's a bit hypocritical, but in the nicest possible way of course! ), I'll make this one short and sweet: The only words I object to in the following statement are the ones marked in bold: So in all unknown logic a universe not to unlike this one most likely existed before the big bang. Assuming the universe will collapse in on itself... I would be more pleased if the words were replaced with: So in all unknown logic , my theory is a universe not to unlike this one existed before the big bang. Assuming the universe will collapse in on itself... Your view may be that the difference doesn't mean anything. I, however, think it does. It's the same difference that marks out religious people. Making more of assumptions than is warranted. Then, of course, you have to define 'assumption'. I accept this, and I have tried to - through the course of my 'long posts', in this thread, and also in other threads - especially the 'agnostic thinking' one. At the end of the day, if people would just agree with everything I say, I wouldn't need to make long replies! (By the way - that last part IS a joke) P.S. H, I believe my words... How reliable that is though...? :shrug: ...indicates quite clearly that I saw that statement as nowhere near certain. However, I would say the idea that all known matter in the universe will fly apart forever has FAR more backing than the idea that a universe like our own existed BEFORE the big bang. The first idea at least has SOME data to back it. The second has NO data to directly back it. (At least that I'm aware of) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 I'll correct myself: I agree with your assumption, and would also like point that it's also a matter of assumption of how close our universe is to the limit from where it should expand further or collapse is still not so accurate. Either way...bla-bla-bla CTDBbbbbrrrr At the end of the day, if people would just agree with everything I say, I wouldn't need to make long replies! (By the way - that last part IS a joke) I would be surprised to know they survived your posts, not mentioning in such exhausted condition they would probably agree that parrots know what they say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 I agree with your assumption, and would also like point that it's also a matter of assumption of how close our universe is to the limit from where it should expand further or collapse is still not so accurate. Either way...bla-bla-bla THat assumption is based on the asumption that all the data we've collected throught the whole of human history doesn't nessesarily mean anything at all. i.e. our whole human experience could just be one big illusion of the senses. That can be assumed. And I assume some people do assume this. ...we can do this for quite a while if you like So if you want to be padantic about it, I do make TWO assumptions: 1. We - as human beings - have the capacity to collect 'data' concerning our surrounding enviromnent that in some way accurately represents it. 2. This 'data' we collect is more substantial and means 'more' than theoretical thought alone. If these two assumptions cannot be agreed upon, then we may as well all just resign ourselves to irrationality... (Gods, infinite time - whichever one turns your crank and makes you a happy bunny...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 1. We - as human beings - have the capacity to collect 'data' concerning our surrounding enviromnent that in some way accurately represents it. What, I thought you were agnostic? There are more realistic notes here. 2. This 'data' we collect is more substantial and means 'more' than theoretical thought alone. Well it depends on it, I'd say, and wouldn't put it that straight. Other than that, I guess I have nothing here to disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 1. We - as human beings - have the capacity to collect 'data' concerning our surrounding enviromnent that in some way accurately represents it. Hmmm - it's interesting that you see this statement as 'contradicting' agnostic thought. I think we may have FINALLY found a point which may clear up some ambiguity here. Please explain why you think the above statement is contradictory to agnostic thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 "We - as human beings - have the capacity to collect 'data' concerning our surrounding enviromnent that in some way accurately represents it." Taken as a strong determinative of your world view, this statement would have to spoil your vision of uncertainty (If you have one) (I predict we'll have a problem of terminology discussing it). Agnostics simply say: "Probably there'll be always something more to know, and this process we would probably meet something incapable of being known.". I don't like so much uncertainty about their views. Being able to change your view instanteneusly has nothing to do with taking anything as uncertain. Again I agree that in practice and literally it won't sound so different First of all you use this statement as uncertain but yet important part of your world view . Instead of assuming this statement I say It's accurately true, the measure of truth of which would be how much of an explanational impact it gives to our understanding of reality. I call fundamental things true, while agnostics can't say that (they assume they are so f**king probable to be true). That of course won't make any problem in living our lives, but it can seriusly complicate scientifc method with uneeded complication (I can hear Jub is recovering his body from eternal dust, training his finger muscles, taking his keyboard out of the closet and starts typing something hidius). We are not scientists of course, at least I'm not, but I still think it's important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 There may be problems with clash of terms. ...but I think there may be something else as well... I think there are actually TWO areas of dispute, where maybe you are only seeing one. ONE area of dispute is how ACCURATELY we can record and interperate data. And yes, I do believe we have disagreement on this. I will always hold the possibility - no matter how small - that we didn't QUITE read the data as accurately as possible, because we are working with faliable instruments built with our infalible hands, or otherwise we are working with our falible senses. I think your view is that - even though you admit instruments or senses CAN be falible, if the data we SEEMED to collect makes sense, and provides positive evidence towards rational theories, we have every right to see that as 'truth'. My view, however, is that data collected faliably which then matches 'intelligent' theories could be co-incidence, not truth. But, as more and more data is collected, in many many different ways, and the data STILL co-incides with our rationally thought out theories, I will say the chance of 'co-incidental error' gets so small, that you can just call it 'truth'. I would still admit the 'possibility' of error - no matter how small. You would say 'What's the point of letting such a small possibility worry you? Just admit it's true'. You could have a point. And once the possibility does get small enough, then we would essentially be speaking as one voice anyway - regardless of whether I still hold the possibility in the back of my mind or not. OK - so that's one point where we may disagree. But I don't think that's a massive point of contention. ...here's where I think we actually disagree more strongly: I don't think you can ever disprove God. ...this is an ENTIRELY different problem from imperfect observation. This is whether you can disprove an irrational concept in a rational manner. I don't think you can... i.e. we won't ever get close to being at a point where we are practically speaking with one voice about the fact that God doesn't exist. And I've argued a few times that God is actually - at the very least - not trivial to PROVE either!! I think your view is that once you have proven God to be not nessesary, then essentially you have disproven the whole theory of God itself. I don't believe this is true though. The counter-argument is that God has succeded in covering his tracks well enough so that you are fooled into coming to the conclusion he does not exist!! I'm saying that when it comes to a theory like God (and please note I'm not talking about a specific God here - like Biblical God. I'm talking about God as a concept), you may as well not try to prove or dis-prove it rationally in the first place, because it's not possible. Infinity is also close to God in this respect. The concept of infinity, while not impossible to prove rationally - is DAMN DIFFICULT to prove rationally. The only reason I would not say it's impossible to prove infinity is because unlike God, infinity - in and of itself - is not sentient. i.e. it won't try and HIDE from you if you try and find it, like God might! ...but the fact is infinity - for me at least - is right on the boundry between rationality and irrationality, and should be treated with 'caution' in rational terms. I'll let you reply and at least confirm that this more accurately describes our 'disagreement' before we carry on arguing the particulars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So in all unknown logic a universe not to unlike this one most likely existed before the big bang. Assuming the universe will collapse in on itself... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would be more pleased if the words were replaced with: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So in all unknown logic , my theory is a universe not to unlike this one existed before the big bang. Assuming the universe will collapse in on itself... I think you just made me into a plagiarizer, because that's not my theory. So I like the words back where they were. I'm sorry you have a hard time with my ideas and "obviously" the ideas of others, but it's no need to be rude.. Here is a book and a web page you should go read before plagiarizing me further by making all my statements my idea alone... While I don't agree with everything they say there are parts that make since and even work together... http://www.fourwallseightwindows.com/booksternglass1.html http://www.nature.com/nsu/020422/020422-17.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo If these two assumptions cannot be agreed upon, then we may as well all just resign ourselves to irrationality... (Gods, infinite time - whichever one turns your crank and makes you a happy bunny...) I think you are too busy irrationally cranking your own happy bunny with your own ideas to listen to anyone elses, unless their idea cranks your bunny too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Cosmos Jack, Thanks for the link. The book does looks very interesting. That's actually not sarcasm. I do find the theory interesting, and I want to learn more about it. However, I would like to learn more about it from somebody less likely to fly off the handle because he's looked at the wrong way ...and, NOW here comes the sarcasm: [sarcasm] Although, of course, the people who are clearly stating the highly theoretical nature of the ideas in the second link are stupidly closed-minded, just like myself - which is why they don't just immediately believe everything implied by it. (a.k.a. they don't believe everything they hear) ...how nieve, and small-minded of them... [/sarcasm] I think you are too busy irrationally cranking your own happy bunny with your own ideas to listen to anyone elses, unless their idea cranks your bunny too... A stunning retort. Newton and Einstein would be proud. And to your whole 'rant' about me 'plagiarizing' you -ermm - nice over-reacting. I was only trying to make my point clear to H -and had no intention of being rude by 'altering' the words. Although it's quite clear you don't need much reason to take offense... ...and sorry about not knowing it wasn't just your theory. My mind reading abilities aren't what they used to be. Especially over internet data packets - that get's a bit tricky you know... Anyway - let's get off this boring stuff. Tell me, how's you anger management going...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo Anyway - let's get off this boring stuff. Tell me, how's you anger management going...? Not too good. Ahh but I wouldn't be me without my anger... The Dark side is all Powerful.. For everyone that thinks I'm mean and rude. I'm just RPing as a Sith Poster..... I always wanted to tell someone they were "irrationally cranking their own happy bunny." I'm sorry, but you just walked right into that one.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 For everyone that thinks I'm mean and rude. I'm just RPing as a Sith Poster..... Ahh - well, that clears that up ...although you could have let me know we were RP'ing. I would have used Mind Trick: CTBD: We are just ants in a box CJ: We are just ants in a box CTBD: Good Sith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo Ahh - well, that clears that up ...although you could have let me know we were RP'ing. I would have used Mind Trick: CTBD: We are just ants in a box CJ: We are just ants in a box CTBD: Good Sith Ahh if only it was that simple to change my point of view... We are not ants in a box.. We are people on a planet... and you are implying we're bugs in a small square box... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 I always wanted to tell someone they were "irrationally cranking their own happy bunny." I'm sorry, but you just walked right into that one.... Yeah, good point. I'll give you that one... ...but just don't plagiarize me again - OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.