Thread: Sexy Science

I've learned much more from spontaneous wonder than from school.

One of the biggest mind blowing moments I've had was when I confirmed to myself that everything we separate is really part of one whole when I realized that life is essentially chemistry and is probably just a natural emergent property of it.


6:20 shows some awesome stuff.

Another was when I first looked at the Hubble ultra deep field picture. The awe I felt staring at those multicolored specks of light as my perspective of existence exploded into something so much more vast and mysterious than I ever thought before is a feeling I've sought after ever since. It also began my love of galaxies.

Whenever I try to put into perspective Einsteins general theory of relativity I become a little more gay for him.

When I learned about Galileo and imagined how he felt being the first to see the intricate detail of the planets and new moons, I envied the hell out of him lol

Also, the first time I really thought about it and intuitively realized that another earth-like planet with beautiful variations of animals, humanoids, fruits, plants, landscapes, ect probably exists gave me a mindgasm I'll never forget.

Speaking of sexy science:

"Black Holes are the Engines that Create New Universes" (Today's Most Popular)

Oh...... Oh really? I think I said this back in 2009 and 2010 as well. All of you bow down to me!

I'm actually really happy right now hehe
Here's my posts which I laboriously searched for right now just to make sure it wasn't a false memory (I thought it was for a sec, when DV search wouldn't find my posts. Google did the job though )

Originally Posted by tommo

If we understood how something came from nothing, I see no reason why humans couldn't create something from nothing also, given enough time.

If everything is nothing, well we could create anything we want. It would be nothing, but it would still exist the same as everything else....
My theory is "simply" that this universe came out of a black hole, that's what the big bang was. But where everything came from in the beginning, I can't really comprehend. But I don't see any reason why this universe should be where it all began.

Originally Posted by tommo

I'm going to go back to the creation of the universe for a sec.

This shit blows my mind. I used to ALWAYS think about it when I was younger, then I eventually didn't anymore. I suddenly thought about it out of nowhere the other day while I was driving.... I think. Can't remember. But the point is I finally fully grasped the outrageous concept. Or, I grasped the fact that it is impossible to grasp the concept.

I think Quantum Physics would help answer some questions when we can understand it. I'll have to read Schrodinger's Cat though and figure out what it's all about.

But anyway, I realise that our big bang theory is probably bullshit. If there is nothing, nothing can be created. It's just not possible. But then how do we get here? When did everything start? How did everything start? Did it ever start? People have asked this so many times.... it's pointless. Because we don't know how our universe even started in the first place.

My theory of how 'our' universe got here is that all this matter was sucked through a black hole. It eventually formed all these planets and stars and etc. How the other universes got here (or 'there' (assuming there are multiple universes and black holes are the gateways between them)) I have no idea and don't see much point of contemplating it or trying to figure it out. But I will anyway because it inspires such fantastic monumental awe.

EDIT: Just read the rest of that article. That stuff he says about time is mind blowingly orgasmic.

Lol. Well done, sir.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Lol. Well done, sir.

cheers man

"Black Holes are the Engines that Create New Universes"

The book "The Life of the Cosmos" by Lee Smolin speculates how the parameters of physical laws take the values they do and why their hospitable for life with a creative theory based on this idea if you're interested.

I agree Xei, neutrinos are hot lol. Especially since they've started a new branch of astronomy that can give us a better look into the things like our sun and supernova.

Dry Ice Bubble


Methane bubble tower

But where everything came from in the beginning, I can't really comprehend.

Pondering such things is one of my favourite cures for insomnia. Or a good way of giving myself a headache, along with trying to grapple with other highly abstract concepts.

There can be no answer. Asking why of an axiom just generates a new set of axioms. There will always be a set of facts which you only know by observation, and 'just are'.

If the universe had a beginning (the genesis of space/time) then it seems like a paradox because in order for something to come into being in time, time would have to exist beforehand. There would have had to be a previously existing structure to bring it into existence. Of course the infinite universe scenario has its holes as well. Plato said time is "a moving image of eternity" to me this seems like a contradiction because "moving" implies starting from point A to point B, thus implies finitude, a beginning and an ending, as well as a cause. If time is infinite, time cannot be moving in a direction because from what to what would it be moving? We know that time is in fact moving in one direction because time and its effects are irreversible(at least from our perspective).

Originally Posted by stormcrow

If the universe had a beginning (the genesis of space/time) then it seems like a paradox because in order for something to come into being in time, time would have to exist beforehand. There would have had to be a previously existing structure to bring it into existence. Of course the infinite universe scenario has its holes as well. Plato said time is "a moving image of eternity" to me this seems like a contradiction because "moving" implies starting from point A to point B, thus implies finitude, a beginning and an ending, as well as a cause. If time is infinite, time cannot be moving in a direction because from what to what would it be moving? We know that time is in fact moving in one direction because time and its effects are irreversible(at least from our perspective).

You can't say it's a paradox. You will most likely never be able to comprehend if it makes sense or not, due to limitations of the time you have, and limitations of the human brain.
Maybe if we augment with computers soon, but who knows if that will help either.

The point is, you don't have any comprehension or any inkling whatsoever of what these other universes are like.
They most likely follow a completely different set of rules, especially the one where everything started - IF it started anywhere, which isn't a given.
Because in another universe, "starting" might not even exist. (Don't get philosophical thinking about this, I know starting doesn't really exist anyway, but I'm talking in a symbolic sort of sense here, for ease of discussion and communication).

I mean that ends and beginnings and size and weight and whatever else, might not exist in another universe.
They would most likely contain "things" which we have absolutely no concept of, and no ability to imagine, or even comprehend if we eventually witness them somehow.

This is a different view to what I have said previously in this post, so don't get them confused, because they do sound similar.
Even if the smartest person ever could prove the laws of these other universes, they probably wouldn't comprehend them either.
Just like we don't even really get some things in our universe. We can prove it, but not comprehend it.

But as I said, that is different to my main point. Which is that another universe could be entirely different from ours.
Like they might not even have chemicals in them, or have any sort of time, mass or physical properties whatever.

Now go look up at the night sky.

Like I say, whatever law you give, it will never prove itself. Whatever level of explanation you at, even the 'ultimate level' if that even exists in any meaningful sense, you've still just got a bunch of unexplained observations. It not a case of not being able to do it because of human ignorance; it's a case of the thing being inherently impossible and contradictory.

Originally Posted by Xei

Like I say, whatever law you give, it will never prove itself. Whatever level of explanation you at, even the 'ultimate level' if that even exists in any meaningful sense, you've still just got a bunch of unexplained observations. It not a case of not being able to do it because of human ignorance; it's a case of the thing being inherently impossible and contradictory.

I wasn't talking about that though. I was responding to stormcrow.

Originally Posted by tommo

You can't say it's a paradox. You will most likely never be able to comprehend if it makes sense or not, due to limitations of the time you have, and limitations of the human brain.
Maybe if we augment with computers soon, but who knows if that will help either.

The point is, you don't have any comprehension or any inkling whatsoever of what these other universes are like.
They most likely follow a completely different set of rules, especially the one where everything started - IF it started anywhere, which isn't a given.
Because in another universe, "starting" might not even exist. (Don't get philosophical thinking about this, I know starting doesn't really exist anyway, but I'm talking in a symbolic sort of sense here, for ease of discussion and communication).

I mean that ends and beginnings and size and weight and whatever else, might not exist in another universe.
They would most likely contain "things" which we have absolutely no concept of, and no ability to imagine, or even comprehend if we eventually witness them somehow.

This is a different view to what I have said previously in this post, so don't get them confused, because they do sound similar.
Even if the smartest person ever could prove the laws of these other universes, they probably wouldn't comprehend them either.
Just like we don't even really get some things in our universe. We can prove it, but not comprehend it.

But as I said, that is different to my main point. Which is that another universe could be entirely different from ours.
Like they might not even have chemicals in them, or have any sort of time, mass or physical properties whatever.

Now go look up at the night sky.

Perhaps I was mistaken that it is a paradox but it is nonetheless a contradiction. There are two possible answers to the question, one says the universe had no origin and one says it does have an origin but both answers seem wrong to me which is why I believe them to be contradictory.

Human knowledge does have limits yes but keep in mind we have transcended all of the limits we have imposed on ourselves, I mean a couple hundred years ago who would have guess that someone in the US could talk to someone in Australia via internet? The point is just because we don't understand now doesn't preclude us from understanding in the future.

I cant testify to the laws and conditions of another possible universe because I only have knowledge of this universe and Im working with what I got and in this universe the law of causality stands. I'm assuming you believe induction to be a fallacy and I can somewhat agree but like I said I can only work with what I got but I do realize that sensory experience is far from certain. It is of great importance that we recognize our epistemological limitations but we should also realize that future generations will elucidate many current questions in spite of our self-imposed limits.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Perhaps I was mistaken that it is a paradox but it is nonetheless a contradiction. There are two possible answers to the question, one says the universe had no origin and one says it does have an origin but both answers seem wrong to me which is why I believe them to be contradictory.

Yeah, I get that. Which makes sense if our universe in the only one or if all the universes have the same "rules" as ours.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Human knowledge does have limits yes but keep in mind we have transcended all of the limits we have imposed on ourselves, I mean a couple hundred years ago who would have guess that someone in the US could talk to someone in Australia via internet? The point is just because we don't understand now doesn't preclude us from understanding in the future.

Knowledge is different to comprehension. For example I know that this message is being sent to you (indirectly) using just 1's and 0's. I cannot really comprehend that though.

Some recent research has suggested that comprehension is a major barrier for people accepting evolution. Because they don't think that something as complex as a human could arise from natural selection. Even Darwin admitted that something like the human eye was a minor blow to his theory. But 4.5 billion years is a really bloody long time. People can't comprehend it.

For example if I ask you to show me how long a metre is on the ground, you'll probably get it almost correct. Maybe even 10 metres. If I ask you to show me a km, or a mi, you won't have any idea really. You'll probably be off by at least a few hundred metres. Now show me 100000000000000 km/mi.

Now apply this to time.

That's kinda besides the point, but I'm showing the difference between knowledge and comprehension. I think it's kind of interesting in showing how we just can't comprehend some things. Because of the brains limitations. Of course, as I said, we can augment with computers to change this probably in the not too distant future.

After all, we've already connected computers to a patients brain to enable them to hear. I don't think other things are too far off.

So yes, we will overcome these limits, but the brain can't do it yet. Or maybe, it can, because we know we can change our own brains, but there isn't enough time in our lives to do it.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

I cant testify to the laws and conditions of another possible universe because I only have knowledge of this universe and Im working with what I got and in this universe the law of causality stands. I'm assuming you believe induction to be a fallacy and I can somewhat agree but like I said I can only work with what I got but I do realize that sensory experience is far from certain. It is of great importance that we recognize our epistemological limitations but we should also realize that future generations will elucidate many current questions in spite of our self-imposed limits.

Yes induction is a fallacy. It almost never works. I would hesitate to say never, but that would be induction itself . And nothing is 100%.

But you can also work with experimental stuff like this finding.
They said time could go backward and forward in another universe.
There are also other theories regarding this, so you don't have to confine yourself to our universe in your thinking.

Originally Posted by tommo

Yeah, I get that. Which makes sense if our universe in the only one or if all the universes have the same "rules" as ours.


Knowledge is different to comprehension. For example I know that this message is being sent to you (indirectly) using just 1's and 0's. I cannot really comprehend that though.

Some recent research has suggested that comprehension is a major barrier for people accepting evolution. Because they don't think that something as complex as a human could arise from natural selection. Even Darwin admitted that something like the human eye was a minor blow to his theory. But 4.5 billion years is a really bloody long time. People can't comprehend it.

For example if I ask you to show me how long a metre is on the ground, you'll probably get it almost correct. Maybe even 10 metres. If I ask you to show me a km, or a mi, you won't have any idea really. You'll probably be off by at least a few hundred metres. Now show me 100000000000000 km/mi.

Now apply this to time.

That's kinda besides the point, but I'm showing the difference between knowledge and comprehension. I think it's kind of interesting in showing how we just can't comprehend some things. Because of the brains limitations. Of course, as I said, we can augment with computers to change this probably in the not too distant future.

After all, we've already connected computers to a patients brain to enable them to hear. I don't think other things are too far off.

So yes, we will overcome these limits, but the brain can't do it yet. Or maybe, it can, because we know we can change our own brains, but there isn't enough time in our lives to do it.



Yes induction is a fallacy. It almost never works. I would hesitate to say never, but that would be induction itself . And nothing is 100%.

But you can also work with experimental stuff like this finding.
They said time could go backward and forward in another universe.
There are also other theories regarding this, so you don't have to confine yourself to our universe in your thinking.

The internet example was a great one ( which reminds me of Nagel's What is it like to be a bat?) I see where you are coming from. Its true we cannot comprehend some things like difficult maths in our heads but a computer can which is like an extension of the human mind. The brain definitely has limitations but I have confidence that we can transcend theses limits in the future. I think the fusion of humans with computers is at this point inevitable(Imagine exploring the cosmos in a robot body!) I agree the possibility of possible universes is interesting but if other universes are spatio-temporally isolated from ours how can we comprehend their existence without delving into speculation? There is the many-worlds interpretation that says when unobserved particles act as a wave, all of the positions of the particles represent other possibilities in other parallel universes which Im sure has Leibnez rolling in his grave from joy. Your right we dont have to confine ourselves to one universe but other universes with different initial conditions and laws are beyond my experience so I cannot but too much weight into their existence.