Before The Big Bang!

[Reveilled]

1. Because although Metallica may have metaphysical leanings, but their music is as mellifluous as cats mating, amplified by 196 decibels. And Billy Joel simplifies cosmic ruminations down to simple terms, so that the everyman in the audience can ponder along, too.

2. Because no-one's been there yet. (I'm sure when OS is as boring as Utah, no-one is going to be in a hurry to go there.)

3. For faces, it is a ratio of facial features, i.e. size and relative positions, that is the closest approximation to the Golden Mean. Look at anime (or Pandas); see the big eyes and small noses?

4. Please clarify which type of love: eros, agape, religious devotion, etc.

We just need to expand our meta-dictionary to include transcendental terms such that they may encompass the new phenomenological discoveries ... or should that be the other way around ? 

"Mellifluous as cats mating"...I'll have to remember that metaphor. :D But why wouldn't I like that sound? Others certainly do.

As to space, why would the fact that no-one's been there yet make me want to go? As to beauty, I was thinking more along the lines of a sunset. And as to love, I meant regular old "I love you and I want to spend my life with you" love.

 

As to that...hypothesis...I'll get back to you on that when I have my English Language degree and can make sense of more than the bare outline of it.

[Commissar]

What's so maddening about this debate is that none of us will ever know the answer.  A hundred, five hundred, a thousand years from now...at some point, humans are going to figure it out.  We're just not going to be around to see it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I doubt the human race will ever answer this question. I don't think that our minds are built to comprehend this kind of knowledge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Depends on what you think the likely answer is. If it really is a guy with a big beard and a white cloak, then no, our minds likely are not meant to handle that kind of knowledge.

 

If, on the other hand, it ends up being a rather dry mathematical equation, well...I think we'll handle it.

[Commissar]

Without wishing to rehash the previous pages (ahem, Commissar  )...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, sorry. Came late to this thread, mostly because I've taken all comers over on 'Religious Devotion in the US.' Beat 'em all senseless, and so now it's just me and Atomic Space Vixen agreeing on atheism and a couple of guys arguing about gay marriage.

 

What happened to all of the hardcore conservatives around here? I remember back when it was a Black Isle board (that's where we all came from, isn't it?) that kind of thread would be up to thirty pages by now. I'm struggling to make it ten.

[11XHooah]

What happened to all of the hardcore conservatives around here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We're on vacation I'll check out that thread and see what I can do.

[metadigital]

"Mellifluous as cats mating"...I'll have to remember that metaphor.  :D But why wouldn't I like that sound?  Others certainly do.

As to space, why would the fact that no-one's been there yet make me want to go?  As to beauty, I was thinking more along the lines of a sunset.  And as to love, I meant regular old "I love you and I want to spend my life with you" love.

 

As to that...hypothesis...I'll get back to you on that when I have my English Language degree and can make sense of more than the bare outline of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You didn't mention dislike, you mentioned a preference. :D

 

that reminds me, I was listening to extracts of the NF book on the race to the Moon

 

with the USSR cosmonaught and US astronaught's perpectives, Alexi Leonov said that the most startling thing about space, was that it wasn't black at all. In fact, once you are out of the Earth's atmosphere, there is no great impediment to the cosmic lightshow ... everywhere one looks there is light, light miliions and billions and trillions of little and great pinpricks of light. That's why I want to go to space. Oh, and "zero gravity" sounds neat. :cool:

 

Perseptions are an interesting conundrum; I would say that the beauty we see is linked to the very balance of nature. Our intellects are designed to find patterns (that's an overactive imagination can lead to paranoic meanings being derived from innocent situations ... a bit like finding god in the universe " ) -- after all I don't think it is an accident that we find storms beautiful.

 

That sort of love is just an overloading (as in the Object-Oriented subclass constructor type of overload) of a basic bonding required to raise offspring.

 

To explain: in mammals, for example, because the pregnancy is relatively long, the young are born helpless and mature over years (e.g. elephants are pregnant for 2 years, their young take a decade to reach young adult age, they live for as long as humans, typically); they need to make sure that the optimum result (procreation) is ensured as a maximum probability. Historically, a two adult parental unit would survive more efficiently than a single, so there is a biological advantage for animals that have a stronger bond to survive. Love is just an over-emotional intellect being co-opted by this biological advantage.

 

We feel it so strongly for the same reason we feel compelled to copulate -- it rewards us with pleasure (although quite different sorts!).

 

Yeah, that hypothesis I came across -- and I was about to get upset and say someone had forgotten George Orwell's 1984; but Edward Sapir died before Orwell wrote his seminal novel -- even if the theory wasn't published until after Orwell died (he died almost as the last full-stop was typed on his manuscript). It's just the Newspeak theory, really.

[Fionavar]

Um I'm not certain, but I suspect we are in danger of this thread being derailed ... let's try to keep to the topic at hand ... if possible

[metadigital]

Um I'm not certain, but I suspect we are in danger of this thread being derailed ... let's try to keep to the topic at hand ... if possible

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not following all my links then, Green Dragon? "

[Reveilled]

Righty-ho. I think I went about making my argument in a far too abstract and flowery manner. Would you allow me to try again?

 

Okay, what's one plus one?

 

(I'm going somewhere, I promise)

[SteveThaiBinh]

Okay, what's one plus one?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ooooh, I know! I know!

 

Two.

 

*waits for effusive praise from teacher*

[Reveilled]

Okay, what's one plus one?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ooooh, I know! I know!

 

Two.

 

*waits for effusive praise from teacher*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bravo. You get a gold star. Now, for extra credit, tell me this:

 

Why?

[SteveThaiBinh]

Why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The correct answer is 'I don't know'.

 

Another answer is that we live in a universe where the basic laws of physics/mathematics are such that one plus one equals two. Or perhaps it's just because I can't imagine how one plus one could equal anything else, although when I was three I probably could.

[Reveilled]

Why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The correct answer is 'I don't know'.

 

Another answer is that we live in a universe where the basic laws of physics/mathematics are such that one plus one equals two. Or perhaps it's just because I can't imagine how one plus one could equal anything else, although when I was three I probably could.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My point exactly. The problem with why questions with regards to science, is that quite a few of them have the answer "just because". What's and hows all work fine and logically, but whys don't always make logical sense, and sometimes they're just plain crazy. And when you've got a crazy question, you need something crazy and illogical, like belief or imagination to come up with an answer.

 

Science isn't designed to answer why questions. If we ever get answers to these, they'll come from philosophy, which is designed for that very purpose.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Here's a possibility (I think I mentioned it before on a different thread so sorry if I'm repeating myself).

 

Edit: Actually it was on this thread, just a while ago.

 

As per Lee Smolin's fecund universes theory, one plus one equals two because that is the result which most favours the creation of a universe in which the number of black holes is maximised.

 

I don't know if I believe this theory, but it's the first one I ever read that really tried to address some of these 'why' questions.

[Reveilled]

To be honest, that sounds a whole lot more like a hypothesis than a theory. But hey, maybe.

[E_Motion]

This is true, honestly.

 

When the Manhatten Project first started up, there was a great debate within the scientific community whether the project should be allowed to continue because there was a calculable probability, albeit small, that if a chain reaction were ever started, it might not stop until it consumed all matter in the universe. As far as we know, that didn't happen (although according to some current theories of physics, every event of uncertain outcome results in the spawning of a sufficient number of parallel universes to accomidate each of the possible outcomes of the event). So I guess I should say that it never happened in our current universe.

 

Perhaps a similar "big bang" preceeded the big bang.

[metadigital]

Okay, what's one plus one?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ooooh, I know! I know!

Two.

*waits for effusive praise from teacher*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bravo. You get a gold star. Now, for extra credit, tell me this:

Why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is a self-evident fact. By definition, two single units operated on with the (communitive) addition process are totaled. It's called an axiom.

 

Addition, multiplication (which is just a shorthand way to express addition), subtraction (or addition of a negative) and division (or a shorthand method to express multiple identical subtractions), etc onto powers and logarithms and bases and natural, integer, rational, irrational, real, imaginary and any other number systems yet to be developed are all perfect models.

 

The actual model self-evidently requires sel-referential integrity to be consistent (i.e. a model). So

1+1 = 2, or

√(-1) = i

or whatever, because we have defined it so (define it as something else, if you like: it is just a naming convention at this level of analysis). Why do we need referential integrity (and therefore consistency in the model): because that is the point of the model, to consistenty predict and measure the thing it models. You may as well ask why the colour green is called green.

 

Now, a better question might revolve around the application of mathematics to the real world (model on reality). This is a little contrived when using basic mathematics as the example.

 

Perhaps we stick to the speed of light. Why does light travel at the speed it does (300kmps)? That is a much better question, and more to the point of your original comment about the difference between the how and the why.

 

If we follow the scientific line of reasoning, we might reasonably say that all things have a maximum velocity, light included, so that's why. But then we ask: why is it 300kmps? Now we are in difficulty, and the coup de gr

[Reveilled]

As long as you get my point, I'm happy, even if you had to make it for me.

[metadigital]

This is true, honestly.

 

When the Manhatten Project first started up, there was a great debate within the scientific community whether the project should be allowed to continue because there was a calculable probability, albeit small, that if a chain reaction were ever started, it might not stop until it consumed all matter in the universe.  As far as we know, that didn't happen (although according to some current theories of physics, every event of uncertain outcome results in the spawning of a sufficient number of parallel universes to accomidate each of the possible outcomes of the event). So I guess I should say that it never happened in our current universe.

 

Perhaps a similar "big bang" preceeded the big bang.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

)

There is a very real, if tiny, probabilty that in smashing highly charged sub-atomic particles together scientists might actually unleash a black hole at CERN (or wherever).

[Dragon Lord Jones]

Righty-ho.  I think I went about making my argument in a far too abstract and flowery manner.  Would you allow me to try again?

 

Okay, what's one plus one?

 

(I'm going somewhere, I promise)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I just wanna say there are several answers to the equation ... or at least there could be if you really want there to be.

 

one plus one can also equal one for if you take two objects and combined them you do not get two you still have one object ie, water + water = water or one

 

or one plus one can equal three for if you take the two single objects and combined them they produce a third object ie equalling three.

ie, man + woman = child which is now three

 

i never was very good in math. (w00t)

[Darth Flatus]

Read a book on Group theory.

[Musopticon?]

I never thought I would agree with someone named "Dragon Lord Jones". :">

[metadigital]

As long as you get my point, I'm happy, even if you had to make it for me. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Curses, I fell into the trap!

 

A very cunning rhetorical technique, Mr Reveiled. I'll get you next time!

[metadigital]

Righty-ho.  I think I went about making my argument in a far too abstract and flowery manner.  Would you allow me to try again?

 

Okay, what's one plus one?

 

(I'm going somewhere, I promise)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just wanna say there are several answers to the equation ... or at least there could be if you really want there to be.

 

one plus one can also equal one for if you take two objects and combined them you do not get two you still have one object ie, water + water = water or one

 

or one plus one can equal three for if you take the two single objects and combined them they produce a third object ie equalling three.

ie, man + woman = child which is now three

 

i never was very good in math. (w00t)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As Flatus said, you are confusing scalars and groups.

 

That's not a problem with mathematics, that's a problem with your semantics.

 

I would have been more impressed with you pulling infinity out as an example (which is a special case, as it is not a fixed number):

∞ + ∞ = ∞ (e.g. the set of all positive integers and the set of all negative integers)

∞ - ∞ = ∞ (e.g. think of the set of all numbers, less the set of all negative numbers)

∞

[SteveThaiBinh]

...infinity to the infinite power equals Aleph (first letter of the Hebrew alphabet).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Huh?

[metadigital]

...infinity to the infinite power equals Aleph1 (Aleph is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and is a measure of the cardinality of the infinite set).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Huh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wiki Aleph