Philosophy 101

[metadigital]

Why couldn't the universe be infinite?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even if the universe were infinite, our technology only allows us to see back in time about 15 billion years at this stage.

 

However, there are a number of supporting observations to suggest that the universe is only about 15 billion years old, and seems to have expanded from a point (hence the Hubble observation of the Doppler effect and his constant, etc).

 

I do remember seeing a model of the expanding universe and it was a bunch of concentric "shells" of galaxies, clusters and cosmological elements, seperated by large voids. We just can't see beyond the last layer, fifteen billion light years away. (And even then we need a super-bright source called a Pulsar, which gives off the equivalent of the Sun's energy in a second, or something similar.)

 

So, as far as we can tell, the universe is not infinite. Although there is no reason why it couldn't be.

 

The latest theory I read the other day was that black holes contained entire universes. I'll dig it up after breakfast if you like.

[Pidesco]

Why couldn't the universe be infinite?

Even if the universe were infinite, our technology only allows us to see back in time about 15 billion years at this stage.

 

However, there are a number of supporting observations to suggest that the universe is only about 15 billion years old, and seems to have expanded from a point (hence the Hubble observation of the Doppler effect and his constant, etc).

 

I do remember seeing a model of the expanding universe and it was a bunch of concentric "shells" of galaxies, clusters and cosmological elements, seperated by large voids. We just can't see beyond the last layer, fifteen billion light years away. (And even then we need a super-bright source called a Pulsar, which gives off the equivalent of the Sun's energy in a second, or something similar.)

 

So, as far as we can tell, the universe is not infinite. Although there is no reason why it couldn't be.

 

The latest theory I read the other day was that black holes contained entire universes. I'll dig it up after breakfast if you like.

 

One of the more interesting areas in Astrophysics is today is question of how the expansion expands. One of the most puzzling things about the universe, right now, is that matter doesn't seem to be distributed homogeneously. Some places seem to be more densely packed than others, which would, apparently, indicate that the expansion isn't regular. This, if it's true of course, might require a complete revision of the Big Bang hypothesis.

 

 

What's that black hole theory about meta?

[True_Magus]

if we use that definition I would say nothingness doesn't exist.. however paradoxal that sentence may be! but that's just semantics..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By definition, nothing being nothing, it exists and does not at the same time. The idea that nothing does not exist AT ALL is retarded , because that means that all things of the universe are infinite, again... retarded , the universe though is, while constantly growing, not entirely infinite, and given one of the many quantum theories, all of which you seem unfamiliar with, and if you are I'm talking about the one about parallel universes, yes there is one like that , then are you saying that all of these universes are joined touching with no differenciation? That would be ONE universe , not parallels. Please have a good day...(douche)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

what the **** is your problem?

 

Physically it's necessary to distinguish three things: the vacuum, the emptiness and the nothing. The vacuum is a space not filled for any matter, nor solid, nor liquid, nor gaseous, nor plasma. But it can contain fields: electric fields, magnetic fields, gravitational fields, light, radio waves or other not material fields. The emptiness already would be a space void of matter and any other thing-fields, light, even waves. But the emptiness is still empty space, that is, it possesses the capacity to fit something, but it does not encompass any physically tangible entity. Although, complete emptiness does not exist in the Universe since all the space is filled with gravitational fields and the light that travels through it, neutrinos and other particles and fields, even rarefied are contained within it as well. But not even space itself exists in nothing, and it does not have the ability to be filled with something. Nothing is not a place.

 

As I said.. using this definition "Nothing" does not exist.. since all space is (as far as we know) capable of containing matter or electrical fields etc and waves, lightwaves/particles etc

 

I don't agree with this definition - which was my point!

 

oh and please refrain from being a ****ing troll in the future!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My problem is that every time you wrote something on this topic you either didn't explain yourself well enough making it seem impossibly stupid or it simply was. Only you know the answer to that one. Allow me to now explain myself: the whole point of nothing is that it does not exist in our universe because space itself is SOMETHING, nothing must be where space and time become irrelevent. In quantum physics there is place that is no place in between universes. This is the theory of parallel universes I rather rudely stated before, please excuse. Imagine if you will a summer shower frozen, every rain drop suspended in air, each of these rain drops represents a universe the space in between these rain drops is the void. In actuality though this space is not a space in is a lacking of existence and an existence at the same time. In the void space and time become irrelevent. The void is so irrational that a rational mind cannot begin to comprehend its intracacies. When one imagines nothing they always imagine blackness and silence, but as you stated before that is space and space is not nothing because of its ability to contain matter and because of its form. Space is substance nothing is the lack of all substance. And for future reference I shall try to be more compassionate and refrain from being "a ****ing troll." Thank you so much you've changed my life! Yeah I didn't read carefully enough with the whole "if we use that definition" I apologize for being a d**k. Edited August 13, 2006 by True_Magus

[Darth Somethingorother]

But if there is nothing between the parallel universes, then they are joined by very definition?

 

There is a theory floating about-(http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/paralleluni.shtml)(A BBC article on it, with some links) that universes do collide, and that that sparks a 'big bang' event. For universes to be floating and able to collide, then surely they aren't simply in a void, but in a something.

 

From what my admittedly very unscientific mind can percieve from reading the interview transcript, is that we share particles with these parallel universes- ie that they are in the same place, at the same time, only different. Wierd.

 

It's late; I think I need to lie down again.

[Arkan]

In my room I have an empty box. There is nothing in it. Sure, you can argue that there is air, gravity, electromagnetic fields or whatever, but then you're just moving into the realm of being a pseudo-intellectual ass. There is NOTHING in the box.

 

I also know nothing about programming a physics engine for video games. That bit of nothing certainly exists.

 

True wisdom comes in the knowing that you know nothing.

 

This thread means nothing in the Big Scheme of Things .

Edited August 14, 2006 by Arkan

[True_Magus]

But if there is nothing between the parallel universes, then they are joined by very definition?

 

There is a theory floating about-(http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/paralleluni.shtml)(A BBC article on it, with some links) that universes do collide, and that that sparks a 'big bang' event.  For universes to be floating and able to collide, then surely they aren't simply in a void, but in a something.

 

From what my admittedly very unscientific mind can percieve from reading the interview transcript, is that we share particles with these parallel universes- ie that they are in the same place, at the same time, only different.  Wierd.

 

It's late; I think I need to lie down again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe you mean dimensions not universes with the sharing particles because everything exist in ten dimensions at once. See the super string theory. And the void is a nothingness of the absolute definition, so universes are touching yet infinitly far apart. Like I before said [i would like to have] rationality['s babies]. And to Arkan: True wisdom comes when we realize that we know everything and nothing. Edited August 14, 2006 by metadigital

[Blank]

True wisdom comes when we realize that we know everything and nothing.

Says you?

[Krookie]

True wisdom comes when we realize that we know everything and nothing.

 

Okay, great...

 

But what exactly does that mean?

[Blank]

It means you are truly wise when you "realize" (comprehend completely or correctly) a partly undefinable contradiction.

 

In essence, that means you cannot be truly wise. But what I am hung up on is how he knows what truly wise is and we didn't. In fact, I reject his claim as to what true wisdom is unless he can prove to me that he is truly wise himself. I think it is fair that I'll only accept the definition of "truly wise" from one who is "truly wise".

Edited August 14, 2006 by Blank

[Diamond]

How about this: nothing always exists. It is something that can be non-existent, but nothing can be defined as a concept of absence of something. Nothing always exists everywhere. An example in discrete universe: empty set is a subset of any other set, and intuitively, there are infinite number of empty sets in any subset.

[Arkan]

True wisdom comes when we realize that we know everything and nothing.

 

Okay, great...

 

But what exactly does that mean?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ask Socrates.

[kirottu]

True wisdom comes when we realize that we know everything and nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Eh? Here I thought true wisdom comes when we call other people retards in teh internets.

[True_Magus]

It means you are truly wise when you "realize" (comprehend completely or correctly) a partly undefinable contradiction.

 

In essence, that means you cannot be truly wise. But what I am hung up on is how he knows what truly wise is and we didn't. In fact, I reject his claim as to what true wisdom is unless he can prove to me that he is truly wise himself. I think it is fair that I'll only accept the definition of "truly wise" from one who is "truly wise".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In truly Zen-like manner I shall answer your querie with an age-old question: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? And as far as proving true wisdom it is not possible for we are all wise in relative terms. Wise to you may not be wise to me. I am wise of the matters in my life and experiences as you are of yours. My definition of truly wise can be accepted or rejected by any one of you. Does that make you or me right? No. As far as my knowing and you not, have you every actually taken a couple hours out of your day just to think about deeper topics such as good, evil,and duality, the origin and essence of a divine force, and the meaning of life and wisdom? That to me is wisdom and I have gleaned that humans have the potential for great things and we are directly connected with the universe that we have been talking about so long on this topic. The druids had a symbol, some of you may know it but not quite comprehend what it means. The pentagram: each of the lines in the star has a specific meaning: one is all, by it all, for it all, if it does not contain it all, then one is nothing. This simply states that all is one and one is all, thus we contain the universe within by our connection with it. The circle symbolizes infinity, not eternity, because eternity is a measurement of time: from a point until the end of time. I cannot prove to you anything about true wisdom for only by finding wisdom yourself can you recognize it. So there is some incentive seek wisdom, become better and grow, perhaps you can prove me wrong. I would enjoy a new lesson. And to Kirottu that was obviously the nothing portion, but that does not necessarily disprove any amount of wisdom because if one learns from his/her mistakes then wisdom is achieved. I truly enjoy bantering with all of you. Edited August 14, 2006 by True_Magus

[Blarghagh]

And in truly un-zen like ways I shall say that that ancient saying is stupid. Of course it makes a sound. Sound is a tremor. Almost everything causes tremors. Just because no one picks them up doesn't mean they aren't there.

 

[Crumbs!] that's like saying 'if an earthquake brings down your house but you're not around did the earthquake ever happen?'

Edited August 15, 2006 by metadigital

[alanschu]

Ah, but you'd have the evidence to see that the Earthquake did happen!

 

Not that I disagree with your statement that the saying is stupid.

[x1Predator]

I suppose its just a matter of evidence for those type of questions

[Blarghagh]

Ah, but you'd have the evidence to see that the Earthquake did happen!

 

Not that I disagree with your statement that the saying is stupid.

 

"Hey, that tree there is laying on the ground. It must have grown that way. I mean, I didn't hear it, so it couldn't have fallen down."

[x1Predator]

Ah, but you'd have the evidence to see that the Earthquake did happen!

 

Not that I disagree with your statement that the saying is stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Hey, that tree there is laying on the ground. It must have grown that way. I mean, I didn't hear it, so it couldn't have fallen down."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Blank]

And as far as proving true wisdom it is not possible for we are all wise in relative terms. Wise to you may not be wise to me. I am wise of the matters in my life and experiences as you are of yours. My definition of truly wise can be accepted or rejected by any one of you. Does that make you or me right? No.

That is a worldview in itself. I however believe that everyone can know things in the same manner, recognized through a built-in conscience. That is, I believe there is an absolute truth that everyone can interact with and nobody is excepted from interacting with it in a manner that all can understand. The reason I believe this is because I believe there is a God who created everything and is fair. In His fairness I believe He gives everyone a chance to know Him and to know salvation from evil (all that is separate from Him), which we are born into and cannot be saved from without Him. And we want to be saved from evil because everything that is separate from Him is punished, as it is deserving; evil is not good.

As far as my knowing and you not, have you every actually taken a couple hours out of your day just to think about deeper topics such as good, evil,and duality, the origin and essence of a divine force, and the meaning of life and wisdom?

Yes, I actually have thought about these things, at great length too. As a follower of Christ, I find it difficult to obey God sometimes, and I must constantly examine my motivations in order to not give up.

That to me is wisdom and I have gleaned that humans have the potential for great things and we are directly connected with the universe that we have been talking about so long on this topic. The druids had a symbol, some of you may know it but not quite comprehend what it means. The pentagram: each of the lines in the star has a specific meaning: one is all, by it all, for it all, if it does not contain it all, then one is nothing. This simply states that all is one and one is all, thus we contain the universe within by our connection with it. The circle symbolizes infinity, not eternity, because eternity is a measurement of time: from a point until the end of time.

Eternity is like, forever, which is not measurable by time if I recall correctly.

I cannot prove to you anything about true wisdom for only by finding wisdom yourself can you recognize it. So there is some incentive seek wisdom, become better and grow, perhaps you can prove me wrong. I would enjoy a new lesson. And to Kirottu that was obviously the nothing portion, but that does not necessarily disprove any amount of wisdom because if one learns from his/her mistakes then wisdom is achieved. I truly enjoy bantering with all of you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I enjoy talking with you too. These things actually matter to me.

[Pope]

I was reading some Kant yesterday.

 

Where's the fun in philosophizing if you are sceptic about everything? Water boils at 100

[Rosbjerg]

well it's a great motivator for the empirical minded scientest.. experiance cannot be seen as proof, in fact nothing can - we can only guess and accept that somethings are much more likely to happen than others - which leads us to conclude water boils at 100 degrees (under normal pressure), but still remembering that this is not necessarily a thruth.. only an experiance, albiet a rather persistent one..

Edited August 15, 2006 by Rosbjerg

[Lucius]

Who are we hatin' who are we hatin'?! I wanna join whichever mob is winning! )

[metadigital]

I was reading some Kant yesterday.

 

Where's the fun in philosophizing if you are sceptic about everything? Water boils at 100

[alanschu]

Ah, but you'd have the evidence to see that the Earthquake did happen!

 

Not that I disagree with your statement that the saying is stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Hey, that tree there is laying on the ground. It must have grown that way. I mean, I didn't hear it, so it couldn't have fallen down."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, but we're discussing the sound!!!!

[x1Predator]

Ah, but you'd have the evidence to see that the Earthquake did happen!

 

Not that I disagree with your statement that the saying is stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Hey, that tree there is laying on the ground. It must have grown that way. I mean, I didn't hear it, so it couldn't have fallen down."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, but we're discussing the sound!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you could put a tape recorder by the tree... "