Ahh I see thanks for explaining that sageous :)
Honestly I don't see how we could possible reflect on what is outside of this unniverse if we can only base our explanations of things from this unniverse.
Ahh I see thanks for explaining that sageous :)
Honestly I don't see how we could possible reflect on what is outside of this unniverse if we can only base our explanations of things from this unniverse.
That was really my point as well. I guess it might not have come across all that well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I disagree with this statement. While we can't "touch it", we can observe the effects it has. There is no question that from our perspective things happen in order, and not all at once (though special relativity teach us that actions that are simultaneous in one reference system doesn't have to be simultaneous in another). Therefore time is an observable phenomenon, and thus "something".Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
If you both define the meaning of the word 'exists' precisely enough, you'll find your disagreement vanishes into a tautological agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Not really.
The statement that things happen in order "from our perspective" does not lead in any logical way to the conclusion that "therefore time is an observable phenomenon, and thus 'something.'" The "something being observed" is the change of the object being observed, and not time. In other words, the only thing that ever "exists" is the object being observed, and time is simply a decidedly abstract and subjective tool of observation.
I guess we might be saying the same thing when "from our perspective" is considered, since that was sort of my point: time only exists because we need it to do so. But our perspective does not create existence; it only defines it. So if no sentient beings were around to use time as a measuring stick for reality, there would be no time.
You say "not really" but then you make no effort to actually counter my claim. You just used the word "exists" again between inverted commas... you still haven't defined it, so you have no idea if khh is using the same definition; that is, you could just be completely talking past each other.
Possibly.
I'd say time exists in the same sense that gravity exists. We can see neither with our eyes, but we can observe the effect they have on the objects around us.
I think it's not us, but you, Xei, who seems lost in semantics. Those inverted commas are actually quotation marks meant simply to amplify the word, BTW. And yes, I did indeed make no effort to counter your claim. There seemed to be no need; sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I don't need to define existence, and neither does khh, in order to say if something exists or not. That would be absurd. If we were talking about the Eiffel Tower, would we also first have to define Paris before we could talk? I don't think so. For what it's worth, though, on re-reading our posts, we both did seem to acknowledge similar definitions of "exist" without quoting the dictionary.
Khh and I do not have to agree on the definition of exist in order to express our ideas; I get no impression from him that he thinks something exists for reasons other than I do -- I'm not sure about from where you got that.
Actually, we have seen gravity with our eyes (ie, the observance of light bending as it passes near black holes or stars), and we have been able to experimentally confirm it as an actual force that can be observed, measured, and, theoretically, changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
We still don't know what gravity is or much about how or why it works, but it does exist empirically. And no, I'm not going to define "exist;" I think you know what I mean. ;
I don't see how observing that light bend due to gravity is different than observing that objects change over time. I'd say time can be observed, measured and, theoretically, changed just as much as gravity can. More, actually, as I don't see how gravity can be changed, while we have proven through experiments that time moves slower when you're travailing faster (compared to another reference system).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
^^ Okay; one last shot, then I promise to give up:
Observing gravity bending light is different because, frankly, you're observing gravity bending the light, due to its own natural force, while the changes that occur to an object over time have nothing whatsoever to do with time itself -- other forces are causing the changes; time is just the tool used to measure that change. That is the difference.
As you approach the speed of light, your passage of time does indeed slow down, relative to people not moving at that speed... However, time appears to be passing at the same rate to you. Also, this experience comes not from changing time,but from changing other actual forces resulting in high speed.
One thing you keep mentioning is that time is relative, based on the perspective of the observer. Gravity and the electromagnetic forces are always the same, no matter who is observing, anywhere in the universe. Why is there a difference, if time is an actual force?
And for what it's worth, I don't see how gravity can be influenced, but I'm not a theoretical mathematician, either.
:cheers:
Asking what something means, as opposed to how it's expressed, is the exact opposite of semantics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
Your disinclination to answer the question is what's causing a semantic disagreement.
No? But how on Earth is this analogous? You would certainly have to define what you meant by the Eiffel Tower (if there was reason to suspect a disagreement) before you talked about the Eiffel Tower.Quote:
If we were talking about the Eiffel Tower, would we also first have to define Paris before we could talk? I don't think so.
Er. Yes you do.Quote:
I don't need to define existence, and neither does khh, in order to say if something exists or not. That would be absurd.
What exactly do you think words are for?
I'll answer for you: they are for conveying a concept in your head, into the head of the person with whom you are communicating.
If you are using the word 'bat' to refer to a wooden object to hit a ball with, and khh is using the word 'bat' to refer to a winged mammal, that is a failure to use words for their proper function, and as a result any argument you have will be futile nonsense.
Define your criteria for something existing. If you can't manage this task, which should be simple, do some serious introspection about what it is that you are even doing when you debate existence.
I *think* I can settle this one.
I used to define time the same way Sageous, and say it's only an illusion, and that what people mean when they say time is really nothing but the human invention of clocks and calendars used to measure the movement of objects. But then I realized that's not truly time - no more than the arbitrary definition of inches or centimeters is actual distance. The very fact that movement exists is time. If objects couldn't move in relation to each other, then we wouldn't be able to walk around and measure distance to even understand movement. So to say that time is only a measuring tool is only to move the goalposts. (And you couldn't even do that if there were no time)
Sigh.
Okay, Xei, you win. You're right, I'm wrong. I'm just an idiot, you're a genius. The conversation that khh and I have been productively exchanging, while fully understanding each other's definitions, is useless and meaningless simply because you say so. My English degree, the books I've written, my 30+ years experience communicating with others has been rendered meaningless by your superior intellect. You win. Feel better now?
I like to discuss ideas, Xei. Playing word games with sophomoric professors is not fun, or helping anyone. I hope you don't play these inane games in all of your conversations.
I will be careful not to let my inferior intellect darken your door again.
It's a very difficult question to answer simply because nobody knows. You can't be wrong or right when it comes to this kind of question. Although it has science for its base, there is no way anybody could explain how the universe initially came to be. As a general rule, to have an effect, something must first cause the effect but even if the big bang did have a cause, we'd then be back-tracking the cause of the cause and we would have an infinite loop. The only logical way to think about it is to assume that everything has always existed in some form or other; our observable universe is eternal.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me...6x1xo1_400.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
I was just explaining my philosophical stance on these kinds of discussion. It's not a competition. Where I use blunt language it's to be clear, not condescending.
Would things still move?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
I've heard time defined as the 4th dimension, after width height and depth. By that definition, if there were no time, nothing could move.
Well said, Darkmatters, that's pretty much what my wife tells me every time I announce to her that time doesn't exist! Though I have lots of responses (like, movement exists regardless of time -- though we observers do need time to measure and understand that movement, or that time is no more an illusion than is a yardstick or pocket calculator), many of them well rehearsed (and, yes, researched), I won't do so here, because enough has been said, and that really wasn't where I was trying to go with my original post; also, none of it had to do with the OP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Thank you, though, for the infusion of reason, and all apologies to the forum if I got a bit rude back there.
Now back to the conversation, and relevant posts like Araishu's?
Wow, ok. Nice way to say talk to the hand, cause the face aint listening.
I am interested in how you think objects can move without the existence of time, but yet people need time in order to measure that movement. Are people not objects?
And yes, I do believe the nature of time is pretty essential to the original topic of conversation, even if it's not part of the title.
If you define time as only the measure of what everyone else calls time, then you can't have a meaningful discussion about it, can you?
Okay, forget what I just said, for a second.
Yes, things will still move. Time has no influence on movement, so movement happens regardless. It is our measurement of movement that demands time, not the movement itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Time was termed as a dimension, I personally think, because of its necessity in the math, even though it is not a force. And, since dimensions are really no more than definitions we attach to what we see in order to understand them, then yeah, I could see time easily considered a dimension.
Not sure I understand - if things can move, then we'd be perfectly able to walk around with our tape measures, right? In what sense is time necessary for us to measure movement if it's not necessary in order for movement to exist?
But even more essentially, how could anything move if there's no time? You seem to be conflating the measurement of time with time itself - like saying if there's nobody to measure the distance between two rocks then there is no distance between them.
"Time was termed as a dimension, I personally think, because of its necessity in the math, even though it is not a force. And, since dimensions are really no more than definitions we attach to what we see in order to understand them, then yeah, I could see time easily considered a dimension."
Dimensions as you're using the term refers to the measurement of things - the first 3 are measures of physical properties of objects, the 4th (the measurement of motion) is necessary only because things move. But the measurement of something is not the thing itself. Two rocks do have distance between them whether we measure it or not, and yes, the terms we created as names for our measures are arbitrary, but the distance itself remains the same no matter wheather we measure it in inches or centimeters. Unless of course they're moving, in which case we need to measure the rate of movement. The measuring is not the movement, the movement happens regardless.
What I'm clumsily trying to say is that the measurement of dimensions is a measurement of actual properties, so even though in one sense dimensions are only abstract conecpts, they refer to very real properties that have real effects. Including the dimension of time.
Example: You're standing in the highway and an object is moving toward you. Is it dangerous? In order to determine that, you need to take relative measurements of its dimensions - is the object a flea or a bus? The dimensions are vitally important. Including the rate of the object's movement. If it's a bus and it's hurtling toward you at 60 mph, I believe your reaction would betray that you believe time is very very real and that you need to make expedient use of it.
** Edit
It's clear that these are only semantic differences. In order for us all to have a meaningful discussion and understand each other, a little on-the-fly translation is necessary. Sageous, when you see one of us use the word time, you should substitute "movement". When you use the word time, we should substitute "the abstract measurement of movement, entirely independent of movement itself". In that way I think we'd all be talking about the same thing.
...And keep forgetting...
People are objects, some more than others, but only in terms of of physical position in space. The part of people that requires time is decidedly not an object, however, that part being our sentient consciousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Most creatures actually get through their lives without any concept of time at all, yet movement exists in their worlds. A ferret can move quite well, but, aside from genetic functions like circadian rhythm and timing a pounce on a fleeing mouse, that ferret has no concept whatsoever of time -- everything in its universe is here & now, period. Yet movement exists. And again, time is not required for that ferret to make its leap onto the mouse; it is simply what we use (and I suppose the ferret in an incredibly rudimentary way) to understand the mechanics of the pounce.
It is the fact that humans know they are moving that caused them to invent time, and build it into their reality as a force of nature -- it's easier to understand that way!
Yeah. I wouldn't have raised the "time doesn't exist" point if I hadn't thought it relevant. I guess it was the minutia we were dissolving into that I hadn't felt mattered.Quote:
And yes, I do believe the nature of time is pretty essential to the original topic of conversation, even if it's not part of the title.
Time isn't the "measure of what everyone else calls time," it is the measure we all use to make sense of reality. We all use basically the same measure, so agreement as to our concept of the use if time is almost innate. Indeed, one of my problems above was that I was speaking to the premise that everyone in the room shared the same concept of time intellectually -- and, oddly, that concept need not change, whether time exists or not. Awareness (or use) of time is, after all, one of the defining aspects of sentience.Quote:
If you define time as only the measure of what everyone else calls time, then you can't have a meaningful discussion about it, can you?
So yeah, meaningful conversation about the nature of a concept as hard-wired into all of us as time should be easily achieved.
I added a bit on the end of my last post, and what you've said here indicates I was right. Semantic differences. What you're calling time is what the rest of us refer to as an abstract human concept of time - the measuring of it.
Proof: "Most creatures actually get through their lives without any concept of time at all, yet movement exists in their worlds."
If time doesn't exist until it's conceptualized by intelligent beings, then how could humanity have evolved in order to do that conceptualizing? The 'time' you're talking about obviously didn't exist until we dreamed it up, therefore it's only a conceptualization.
I think you're looking too closely into this. I was pointing out that time does not exist as a force or entity of nature. It has no energy, mass, or other force to define it. This is a global concept, I think, and not terribly detail-oriented.
That said:
What does time have to do with tape measures? When I compared time to a yardstick I was being analogous, not literal. Things can move, and we can measure them in terms we can understand, which to date are space and time. Time is not necessary to measure objects in space, unless you feel a need to record how long it took to measure lay out the tape measure. Time is necessary to measure velocity, of course, but again it is a measurement of the velocity, not a cause of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
I'm not sure where you got that question from -- I've been saying from the get-go that movement exists, and did so before we invented time to track it. What am I missing here?
Again, it isn't movement that requires time, it is our need to understand this movement that requires time. Things move, they always have, and they were doing so long before anyone noticed them moving. It was our need to lend order to that movement that led to the invention of time.Quote:
But even more essentially, how could anything move if there's no time? You seem to be conflating the measurement of time with time itself - like saying if there's nobody to measure the distance between two rocks then there is no distance between them.
I'm fine with all this, except one thing: Why are you equating movement with time, rather than the result of forces acting on physical objects? Why isn't time the measuring tool for movement, just as a ruler is the measuring tool for size, or a scale for weight? I don't understand why it gets elevated to a natural force or true physical dimension when it does exactly what a ruler does, except on moving rather than stationary objects. What am I missing?Quote:
"Time was termed as a dimension, I personally think, because of its necessity in the math, even though it is not a force. And, since dimensions are really no more than definitions we attach to what we see in order to understand them, then yeah, I could see time easily considered a dimension."
Dimensions as you're using the term refers to the measurement of things - the first 3 are measures of physical properties of objects, the 4th (the measurement of motion) is necessary only because things move. But the measurement of something is not the thing itself. Two rocks do have distance between them whether we measure it or not, and yes, the terms we created as names for our measures are arbitrary, but the distance itself remains the same no matter whether we measure it in inches or centimeters. Unless of course they're moving, in which case we need to measure the rate of movement. The measuring is not the movement, the movement happens regardless.
What I'm clumsily trying to say is that the measurement of dimensions is a measurement of actual properties, so even though in one sense dimensions are only abstract concepts, they refer to very real properties that have real effects. Including the dimension of time.
Example: You're standing in the highway and an object is moving toward you. Is it dangerous? In order to determine that, you need to take relative measurements of its dimensions - is the object a flea or a bus? The dimensions are vitally important. Including the rate of the object's movement. If it's a bus and it's hurtling toward you at 60 mph, I believe your reaction would betray that you believe time is very very real and that you need to make expedient use of it.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere!Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Yes indeedy, I've been saying from the get-go that time is a human invention meant to lend order to what would otherwise be a chaotic universe. And that order wasn't necessary until some caveman looked around and said, "I am." Before that we were like any other critters, living in a timeless here & now, with no memory of yesterday or dreams about tomorrow. The amazing complexity of knowing there was a past and will be a tomorrow led us to need time, among a bunch of other new concepts, like religion and hope.
Semantics is the wrong word, if you'll pardon the pun. You're saying that movement is really the same as time? Does everyone here think that? Is that what they're teaching in school now? I am deeply confused. I had always thought that movement was the result of force acting on an object, period. Where exactly does time step in to make an object move? Forgive my shortness here, but this is a bit disturbing, and "movement = time" is something I honestly had never heard before. It certainly explains my oddness, doesn't it?Quote:
It's clear that these are only semantic differences. In order for us all to have a meaningful discussion and understand each other, a little on-the-fly translation is necessary. Sageous, when you see one of us use the word time, you should substitute "movement". When you use the word time, we should substitute "the abstract measurement of movement, entirely independent of movement itself". In that way I think we'd all be talking about the same thing.
Well, not exactly the same as... that's a bit of an oversimplification so I could express it in one word. To define it better for the sake of clarity, I'd say that time is necessary in order for motion to be possible. Using only the 3 spacial dimensions you can define only a static universe. For a universe with motion, you must include the 4th dimension - time. This is what I was getting at by bringing up the whole 4th dimension thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
I completely agree that the human conceptualization of time marked a gigantic step foward for us from animals who can't consciously think about it in the abstract and so can't plan for the future or make sense of the past but can only react in the moment prompted by memory and instinct. The human concept of time is a tremendous milestone in our development. But, like language, it's only a symbolic conceptualization.
I don't really know a better way to define time itself. But think about what would happen if you could freeze time, or speed it up or run it backwards. I know, totally theoretical situations, if any such thing would really happen we'd be frozen or sped up or whatever right along with everything else so we wouldn't be aware of anything happening, but imagine standing outside of time. If you freeze time nothing can move - there can be no life. Without duration, there can't be thought, since thought requires movement of electrons. Maybe duration is a better term than movement. But honestly I think movement gets more to the heart of the phenomenon of time. The terms aren't completely identical, but movement is utterly dependent on time.
But I'm using too many words again. Guess I need to stop.
^^ Thank you for that clarification, Darkmatters; that makes much more sense, and dovetails nicely with what I've been taught, and, well, common sense. My wife would be proud of you, as you've paraphrased her oft-voiced (sometimes screamed) argument well. And, before I resign my current attempt to sell the blasphemous idea that time doesn't exist, let me add this thought to your last post:
Funny that you suggest freezing time. What exactly would you freeze? Are there time molecules? What exactly is present when that 4th dimension attends and creates motion? My guess is that your answer is absolutely nothing, and you would be correct. Then what is time, then? Just the existence of a 4th dimension?
I think my problem with all this is that you're adding a little extra reality to reality that just might not be there. Think about it... You (and, well, pretty much everybody) are creating a physical dimension in order to explain an event that defies human comprehension. That event? Motion. Perhaps that created 4th dimension is a dimension made only of perception?
Energy causes things to move, and move they do. Yes, the only way we can explain that movement is by describing it as, say, the displacement of matter across space over a certain period of time.
We need to add the factor of time in order to understand the movement ourselves; but there is no thing that is time anywhere in the process. Things move, and yes, from our perspective time was a part of that movement because it was the only way we observers can track that movement. But there was no thing that is time present, ever. So time does not exist.
This is not a semantic exercise; except for its mathematically necessary and cognitively convenient presence to make motion comprehensible to our limited minds, there simply is no force, material, or even essence that can be identified as time. It doesn't exist.
And yet, time is the most powerful force in our lives. Go figure.
Thanks for playing!
PS: This post was of course rhetorical. I understand exactly what you're saying, and only wanted to summarize. No need to respond or clarify again; I get it, and logic loops are dull.
Oh damn Sage, just when I was going to call you a stubborn old goat and say I was done playing irresistable force to your immovable object! :lol:
And suddenly you shifted! Ever so minutely, but you did shift.
And now you're making my brain hurt.
Trying to get my bearings back a bit - no, time is not a thing, a material or a force. It's simply the progression of events. Is it real? Well, is acceleration real? It's neither material nor energy.
I suspect the real problem is that we're mixing up Relativity and Newtonian ideas. The 3 axes of Newtonian space, and the added dimension of Time, might be irrelevant in the Spacetime continuum. Can anybody who knows some things about physiscs say anything relevant here?
Nope, acceleration is just as real as time, for the same reasons; indeed, isn't it just a corollary of the Arrow of Time anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Agreed.Quote:
I suspect the real problem is that we're mixing up Relativity and Newtonian ideas. The 3 axes of Newtonian space, and the added dimension of Time, might be irrelevant in the Spacetime continuum.
That would be very cool!Quote:
Can anybody who knows some things about physiscs say anything relevant here?
:cheers:
Ok, I gots something - are width, height and depth real? They're not material or energy. And while we did have to invent the symbolic language of drawing to represent these qualities so we can work with them, the qualities themselves actually do exist as inherent properties of the objects.
What they are is qualities of physical objects. I suppose that's what time is too - a quality of movement or somesuch. I think maybe you're taking the word exist too literally, thinking something must be material or energy in order to exist. Qualia exist without being physical or energy.
** Edit - decent video on theories about time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw6hS_gy9MY
It strikes me that they're all nearly the same, just observed from different viewpoints. Aside from the Presentist theory, they all involve a dot that represents the present sliding along a timeline with events posted along it, and the observer is either in a fixed position with the dot seeming to move, or stationed on the dot itself, watching events move. Presentism seems to be one of those theories modified to ignore the idea that even the present moment is in constant flux.
At least it's good to know we're not the only ones who can't seem to think with great clarity about the nature of time. :chuckle:
Uh oh, you're starting to channel Hume...Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Yes, though the words width, height, etc, are just words and have no reality in and of themselves, in their case they tend to represent actual objects that by every definition exist (i.e., they're still "there" whether we're in the room or not, as it were).
Ah, but the qualities of actual objects describe things that are there no matter what -- things that exist. Movement is merely the result of forces placed upon those actual objects. The objects and their motion are still the existent parts of the observation, and are there whether we observe them or not. Time is not a quality of motion, it is a method by which we insert ourselves into the picture and measure that motion...there is a difference, I think. Also, do qualia really exist without being matter or energy, or are they then just concepts (like time)?Quote:
What they are is qualities of physical objects. I suppose that's what time is too - a quality of movement or somesuch. I think maybe you're taking the word exist too literally, thinking something must be material or energy in order to exist. Qualia exist without being physical or energy.
Interesting video; but you do realize that it is specifically about various philosophical methods for perceiving time, and seems to ignore, avoid, or forget any mention of time as real, right? Sort of makes my point for me, I think... or else I misunderstood, which could be the case because it's way late and I am way tired. Also, I think we should leave a presentist view of time to the ferrets; seems a bit regressive if you ask me.Quote:
** Edit - decent video on theories about time:...It strikes me that they're all nearly the same, just observed from different viewpoints. Aside from the Presentist theory, they all involve a dot that represents the present sliding along a timeline with events posted along it, and the observer is either in a fixed position with the dot seeming to move, or stationed on the dot itself, watching events move. Presentism seems to be one of those theories modified to ignore the idea that even the present moment is in constant flux.
Okay, that's it for me tonight; If I was making no sense before, I don't even want to imagine what it's like for you now!
Who - me? :shadewink: (sorry - little play on wordage there)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
I call foul! You're applying different standards to the physical dimensions than to time. Width (for instance) does not represent an actual object, only a particular characteristic of that object. In exactly the same way movement represents a characteristic of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
Hahaha no, you're right! I haven't been able yet to find anything referencing 'real' time, I meant that video just as part of the research into modern thought about time - I was hoping to discover something else, but it ain't in that vid. Maybe I need to go back and re-read my book about the special and general theories of relativity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
But I'm starting to feel pretty stupid - like we're wrestling with some pretty basic concepts that seem really difficult to us just because we haven't studied the relevant science, and some of the people on the board are facepalming pretty hard at us. :bang:
** Edit
I googled Reality of Time and have been running into some pretty interesting pages. Some of them are pretty bizarre and patently absurd, but this one so far seems like it might get to the heart of 'real time' as we've been discussing: http://www.idiocentrism.com/time3.htm
Click from there to part 1 of the article - that page seems to be the only place where I can find links to all 3 parts together. I've only read partway through part 1 so far, but it seems promising. One intriguing idea - he says that in physics time is believed to be an illusion because it breaks down at the subatomic scale and in extreme relativistic conditions. So it seems he's leading up to something similar to our subject. At the very least it should give us language and ideas to become more conversant.
Now I never said time was a force. I said watching something change over time is somewhat like seeing something be affected by an invisible force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
As I understand it, time is more like a dimension (though not exactly like a dimension), and perhaps arguing from that viewpoint will get us closer to agreement (or perhaps show that Xei was right after all).
Would you say space exists? As in the normal three dimensions around us. Because you could argue that space isn't really anything. You could say that it's just something we need to make the physics come out, just the tool we use to measure distance. You could say that it's just the framework within which we can calculate how objects affect each other.
But I'd say that space exists. At least as long as there is something within it.
Also gravity and electromagnetic forces can't be the same same regardless of the reference. When you move at a high speed the length of items moving at a slower speed actually shrinks (from your viewpoint). Since the forces are affected by distance, they should change too. Though to be honest I've never actually heard anyone explain exactly what happens with forces due to this effect, so I could be way off.
(Also I think it's a theoretical physician that would have something to say about that. Math doesn't really have anything to do with the real world, it's all just a logically coherent system we use to describe it)
I'm getting tired of this, but you deserve a couple of responses, Khh:
Honestly? No, I would say that space does not exist, for exactly the same reasons as time, and for all the reasons you list. Just because there's stuff in it doesn't mean there is a substance there. Indeed, space literally means the absence of substance. I was going to mention that earlier, but I didn't want to get myself into more trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
So no, space doesn't exist either... however the discovery of the Higgs particle, and corresponding Higgs field, will likely change my mind on that.
I never said gravity and the electromagnetic forces are the same; sorry if it sounded that way. What I did say is that gravity has been established theoretically and experimentally as a force (called "gravity," and not electromagnetic), and that there is plenty of empirical data supporting its existence.Quote:
Also gravity and electromagnetic forces can't be the same same regardless of the reference. When you move at a high speed the length of items moving at a slower speed actually shrinks (from your viewpoint). Since the forces are affected by distance, they should change too. Though to be honest I've never actually heard anyone explain exactly what happens with forces due to this effect, so I could be way off.
Math has everything to do with the real world; indeed, math is the language of the real world. In fact, the more advanced theoretical physics gets with its math, the more mystical it gets (ie, quantum entanglement). So it might not be a good idea to dismiss the math, and it might be an excellent life-choice to embrace it.Quote:
Also I think it's a theoretical physician that would have something to say about that. Math doesn't really have anything to do with the real world, it's all just a logically coherent system we use to describe it
No foul at all, I think, as the measurement of width does indeed represent an aspect of an actual, existing object. As I said, width is not an object unto itself, but what it represents, or measures, is part of an existing, touchable, part of reality object. Not so with time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
And yes, as I mentioned (finally) above, if you're just laying out a set of dimensions in space, measuring nothing but themselves, then no, they do not exist. In that case they're just like time.
More later, I hope...I want to see your link, but no time now.
I would agree that our way of thinking of space, say an xyz coordinate system or whatever, isn't real but just a concept. However the fact that there is distance between objects, and that objects themselves have volume indicates that space is a real phenomenon. Otherwise they couldn't have volume. Or shape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
You misunderstand me. I mean to say that both gravity and electromagnetic forces will be affected by high-speed travel, not to equate the two. The reasons are laid out above, but in a nutshell, it's this: Length contraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
No, math is but a tool. By itself it doesn't tell us anything about the world. We just use math to describe the world, but then once we've related the two it allows us to see the implications in ways we couldn't without.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
I'm not dismissing math. Math is a fantastic tool. I love math. I'm just saying it's not directly related to the real world, and that it's perfectly conceivable that there are other ways of describing it.
I'm tempted to say that instead of time being an illusion of perception for humans, perhaps your lack of belief in time is due to an illusion caused by the inability to see it the same way you see that dimensions exist in space.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
Also, I don't get how you can think that position is real (or exists), motion is real, math is real, but still claim that acceleration and time isn't real. Motion is just the first order derivative of position with regards to time, like acceleration is the second.
I think that it is often overlooked, and even scoffed at, the possibility of a holographic universe scenario in which time, space, dimension, direction, and/or movement is completely different from our perceptions of it. On a computer screen we see (2D representations of) 3D objects. These objects do, in a sense, exist, as impulses of electricity. We have no absolute standard for how we should view the universe and our place in it. For all we know we could, ourselves, be energy pulses. We could be 2 dimensional. We could be 1 dimensional. We could be 4 dimensional. We could actually exist in many different ways that is perceived, by us, as a 3D space.
I really think that people have the tendancy to limit themselves by overlooking this fact.
Again, you need to define your terms.
I don't really understand what one could refer to by 'dimension' other than things within your experience. If something has no consequences for your subjective experience, what does it mean to say that it's true, and how could you ever demonstrate it?
When I say 'I live somewhere 3 dimensional', I mean exactly that, in my experience, I need a minimum of three independent directions, if I am to be able to reach every other point I can see, by moving only in those directions. If there is any ambiguity about the terms they can be further defined. 'Living somewhere 3 dimensional' is an easily tested predicate which takes my experience as an argument. If the predicate always agrees with my experience, it is by definition impossible for it to be wrong.
Yes, you may be able to represent all of the information in my space with only a 1 dimensional object, but that does not have any bearing on my terms as I've defined them; it's a separate question.
So I read -- okay, skimmed, for lack of time (there it goes existing again!) -- the articles you linked to, and I must say the author seems to be upholding what I've been trying to say... Only his words make much more sense than mine, I'm afraid. Thanks for sharing -- I think it means a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Khh & Xei: You might check out this link and read the articles, as they seem to support -- or explain on both sides, my suggestion that time does not exist. Then, if you still disagree, then argue with that guy and not me, because I'm done.
You haven't skimmed deep enough - he cites articles and books with deep scientific arguments for the nonexistence of time, and even of space - but he brings them up only to argue against them. I recommend (when that non-existent time allows) reading lots of the links too - some great stuff.
Heh - one of the scientists (or philosophers or whatever) that he cites is named Zeh. I loled.
That figures; and curse me for judging on just a skim. I've printed it and stuck it in the bathroom where it will be thoroughly perused...thanks again for sharing!Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Oh man, and now it gets complicated hahaha!! I know very little about this theory, but I understand scientists theorize that if an object were to enter a black hole, as it becomes crushed down it would also somehow smear itself as a layer of information around the perimeter of the black hole (not sure how they could even surmise this) and from that info a duplicate of the object could be created. And from this they then postulated the holographic universe theory. Or at least that's something like what I heard on some science show, I might have it all screwed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by sloth
Fascinating but head starting to hurt.
I can't begin to grasp what kind of mechanism would assemble and 'project' that information to maintain the universe. But I think I need to get a book or start researching - I want to learn a bit more about it. Hard to understand what time would mean in this scenario.
It also makes my brain melt down to think of this in conjunction with the expanding cosmos of the Big Bang theory.
If you haven't read it already, you might try The Hidden reality, by Brian Greene. Though you described the holographic universe very well, he does an excellent job describing it and other cool astrophysical stuff. He did the same for time & space in The Fabric of the Cosmos, And, if you're mathematically challenged like me, These books are most helpful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
I believe I know what you are saying, and I agree. What makes the 3D interpretation of reality that we see less "real" than a hologram or projection? Nothing. Who defines "real" besides us, as humans. I mean only to point out that these possibilities DQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
[/quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I fully admit that I have opened a new question here.
Because time becomes nonsensical, as I understand it, though I welcome criticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
It's very much like imagining information stored on a disk. If you were to view that information as the totality of your experience, you may see a full 3D world (depending on the information held within). To help conceptualize, forget the idea that there are a bajillion atoms around you, and consider the idea that there is only one atom, and a bajillion different ways in which to view that atom. You are not at the center of your surroundings. You are surrounding them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
I am not stating any particular theory that I am willing to debate about, and it is not suggested in the mainstream holographic theories. It is only a thought experiment to help expand one's view.
Sure we could live in a hologram, or we could live in a sufficiently advanced computer simulation. But why would your assume that? And, perhaps more importantly, what difference would it make?
At this point I can't wrap my head around the concept enough to understand how time or anything else would be affected really. If I think of a computer showing a quicktime movie from info stored on its hard drive then that brings up the idea of pausing and chapter advancing - but since this would be a natural process I doubt it would include such options. As for what kind of mechanism might 'project' everything, the only thing drifting into my head right now is light passing through a prism or a water drop and projecting a spectrum. But I know that's a meaningless thought - I'm a complete noob with no understanding of the theory. After reading about it more thoroughly I might be able to comprehend it a bit better.
I did not state that anyone should assume such a thing, or that I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
To our perception, it would not change much, except to reiterate the idea that we don't truly know anything. Surely we shouldn't abandon our current understanding of the universe based on such a thing, after all, surely the model of reality and the universe that we have built has to describe SOMETHING about it. It must at least correlate in some way, and I don't believe that anyone could really say that one perspective of the universe is more REAL than another. However, I think we should not forget that anything is possible, and considering ideas LIKE the holographic universe paradigm helps to allow that.
At the most basic level, the theory does not actually suggest that the universe is made of light, or anything that specific. I admit that I am no expert. I only studied a bit on it, to see if anyone else had considered the same idea that I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Though I admit that it is not an easy concept to visualize, I am not quite sure what aspect of it confuses you. You state that that which occurs on a computer is a natural process, and it would still be a natural process be in a holographic universe situation. If we lived life within your real player, we may not even notice when you pause our reality, because time doesn't flow for those periods.
The theory, as far as I'm concerned, is by nature very unspecific, as it is possible that we could never be able to measure the specifics of it, somewhat in the same way that we can never truly know what the universe would look like if our brains translated signal input in a completely different manner. If we tasted colors, heard imagery, and tasted sound, this would seem overwhelmingly confusing to you or I, but if we developed this way, as an infant, it is very possible that we would still be highly efficient, and would not consider that anything is "different" at all. We would perceive the universe in a completely different way, but it would still work for us, just the same.
No.. "Time or anything else" would not truly be AFFECTED in any way. Our perception of it would be different.
I'm going to TRY to do a conceptualization, but I really can't think of a good way to do this, so I can guarantee this is going to be bad.
Consider a video game; A very boring video game, in which about once per hour the computer prompts the user for a keystroke. Pressing the A button prints the letter A on his screen. Pressing the B button prints the letter B, and so on (It's like typing). Unbeknownst to the player, this video game is attached to a big tank that is driving around the city. When the user presses button A, the tank fires at position A. When the user presses button B, the tank fires at position B. At the same time, messages are sent back. If position A blows up, it sends response character A. If house B blows up, it sends response character B.
In one reality, there is a tank driving around destroying houses and killing people, but to the player, it seems like some sort of boring typing game. The player never knows the full reality of the situation, or that there even was one, and in fact, that full reality wouldn't make any difference. When the player presses A, A appears on the screen. That's all that matters. The fact that the tank is shooting at things because of this is irrelevant. Not only is it irrelevant, but in a manner of speaking, the player's reality is just as "REAL" as the tank driving around. The player could create entire novels this way.
If we wanted to take it one step even further, we could say that there is this town. In this town there are about a hundred iron mines. The laborers work all day mining iron from these mines. When a site runs out of iron on the surface, they have have to blast mine. For this, they use a big tank. About once per hour the mayor hits a button, and the tank, in response, shoots randomly at one of the 100 mines, which preps that mine, so that mining can continue.
Yeah, that example was just awful, but I've already typed it, and I'm not deleting it now.
Ok, I understand the scenario - it's not that bad really. But what you're explaining isn't the part that confuses me - what I'm wondering about are the actual physical aspects of it: how information can be stored smeared out across the surface of the universe - information in what form? And what type of mechanism would decode that information? I'm also confused about how scientists could have determined any of this. Was it all done mathematically, or based on some type of observations? (Scratch that last one - of course it can't be based on observations of the inside of a black hole or the periphery of the universe - we haven't been able to observe these things and probably never will)
And just as a quick post-script - after thinking about the conundrums of time as Sageous and I have been discussing it, I now completely agree with Xei and others who have said it just depends on your deifinition of reality. Our measurement of time is simply an extension of our measures of the space between coordinate points in the 3 dimensional imaginary grid we use to describe form mathematically (as well as the space between forms). Example - by knowing the distance between my house and the nearest fast food joint and knowing how fast I can expect to drive on the roads between here and there I can extrapolate the time it would take me to drive there. Both the distance and the time are stated in terms of completely arbitraty and imaginary abstractions we invented as measuring tools, but they both also refer to realities that we need to navigate in order to get from here to there effectively. How long it takes for a solid object to move from point A to point B is just as real as the force needed to move it - at least from our material-bound perspective, so effectively every bit as real as a fist to the face. My saying the difference between my viewpoint and Sageous' is semantic is the same as Xei's allegation that it all depends on how you define reality or existence. So I withdraw my assertion that time is definitely real - it's just a word that isn't properly defined and who's apparent meaning suggests things that it really shouldn't.
^^ Well post-scripted, and I agree! Now I have one:
I just had another thought regarding the non-existence of time that seems suddenly relevant (okay, it seemed suddenly relevant at 4 this morning):
Time doesn't exit; change exists.
Everything is ultimately bound to change (that change being things like position in space, atomic condition), and how we understand that change is by attaching time to our observation. Same goes for space, for similar reasons. Objects move, events happen, things decay .... and then we attach meaning to what we observed. That meaning is time & space; which I suppose would make time & space pretty real, to us.
This might all again be semantics and perspective, but I thought it important to mention -- mostly because I should have done so a half-dozen posts ago, and failed to. That's it; I got no more.
Change exists - yes, a good term. I know change exists because I have coffee cups filled with it nyuk nyuk! I also know space exists because I always see it for rent on billboards. But according to a lot of ads time is running out! :shadewink:
Ok, I'll quit trying to be bootleg George Carlin..
Certain of these changes are regular and cyclic in nature, like the orbit of planets and moons, change of seasons etc, which has allowed us to set up timelines by which to regulate other less cyclic events so we can more effectively utilize our time. We do this the same way we measure space mostly - by drawing a line with regularly spaced marks on it - but in the case of time we usually bend that line into a circle and call it a clock or cut it into segments that we stack into a grid we call a calendar. But what these tools do is simply record when the moon or earth reach certain points in their orbits/rotations - providing a known temporal point against which we can guage other unknown events (meet me at the blue spruce when the sun goes down etc). So our measure of time is simply an extension of the measurement of space which allows us greater control and accuracy over our lives by specifying the positions of moving objects as well as the spacial coordinates of those objects.
And Sage, you've proved change is real, even for a stubborn old billygoat like you!! :cheers:
(and me too!)
^^ Guess I should have thought that obvious thought earlier, and saved us all some time!
... So then, where did all this stuff come from?
Hahaha... if I answer that question honestly I'll be hurled off the bridge of death and into the chasm!
Attachment 4082
.. the hell!!?? Why can't I upload as anything but a freakin thumbnail? Crap!
^^ Now I gotta remember what my favorite color was, or else!
Now it's me that's hedging... For me it feels very wrong to say that "change exists". What does that even mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Actually "the second has been defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom", we're no-longer using astronomical measurements. I just wanted to point that out, as it's way cooler.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
I think you might have answered this question yourself:Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
Isn't that definition of a second based on change, given that is is the measurement of transition (aka change) of levels of the ground state of an atom? I think you've noted that change does indeed exist with just about the purest, indeed elemental, of examples.Quote:
Actually "the second has been defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom", we're no-longer using astronomical measurements. I just wanted to point that out, as it's way cooler.
Just a thought; I could be wrong about this...
I suppose you could look at it that way, that's fine really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
It's this bit that's too much for me :cheeky:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
How so? Doesn't the transition of the ground state of an atom show real change, at a truly unequivocal level? If not, then what does it represent?Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
khh, would it work better if I said change occurs, or things move? (or "shit happens"?)
I don't see how anybody could deny this. Maybe the word exist implies that change is a noun rather than a verb, which might be what you object to?
Yeah, I think it's pretty much a semantics thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3...imzuo1_500.gif
Thanks Zeh!
This is all of us who eventually came around to the realization that you told us like 2 pages ago.. :lol:
There is a theory that I learned back in my freshman year of highschool that says there are two planes that were side by side before everything existed. These two planes must've collided somehow (I also believe they were four or five dimensional planes?), and when this happened, it caused the big bang to occur.. Therefore, all of the matter in the world as we know it is a chunk of a 5 dimensional plane
Before the universe was created, there was no positive and negative charges of matter/energy. Therefore, it is possible that our universe was created spontaneuously without any energy put into it..... another possibility is that our universe was made from the fission or fusion of other universes in a much larger multiverse. :p
Sorry if this has already said:
The total energy of the Universe is zero. You don't need energy to create something with zero energy. Therefore, the Universe required no creator. Now, this does not necessarily mean there was no creator, but it would be a rather unnecessary assumption to make.
I suggest going to YouTube and searching up "Where did EVERYTHING come from?" by Aron Ra.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you're wrong. Particles CAN be made out of nothing (in Pairs of Matter & Antimatter Particles so the total Energy is 0). Even though in our universe the amount of Matter and Antimatter isn't equal, the total energy of our universe is still 0.0000000... . Why? Because: Gravity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercuflea
Gravity is essentially negative energy (if you convert the matter surplus into energy (E=mc²) it would be equal to the gravitational field energy * -1).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANtpsunRYIs
:shadewink:
September 09, 2013
As I am laying in bed attempting to settle down for the night and go to sleep, my mind is wandering, and my Spirit is being hit with revelation. It started with this thought I heard somewhere sometime:
Everything in the visible realm came from an invisible realm.
I pictured myself going to a tree and peeling bark off and breaking it in my hands. Normally when I go about my daily "mundane" business, I would just see a tree with bark on it. They're all over the place; they're pretty but not special or amazing. But this little piece of tree bark broke through the barrier between the visible and invisible. In a sense, it is actually a manifestation of the invisible realm. So are the waves of the ocean, or ants on the ground, or your chair in your kitchen, or the dust you sweep up, or the stars in the sky. These all exist because of Someone in the invisible realm. Every atom in our solar system is proof that God exists. And let me tell you, the universe is real BIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.
Everything you will ever see, feel, taste, touch, or smell is a manifestation of an invisible creative power. Everything is a miracle.
I don't get why the big bang was ever a theory. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Scientists know this. So where do they suppose everything came from. It had to come from Someone outside of the laws of nature and science, Someone higher above the world we live in, Someone really powerful and miraculous, Someone like Jesus Christ of Nazareth who is powerful enough to even rise from dead. :)
John 1:1-10
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (the rest of creation can be found in the rest of Genesis)
This all is increasing my faith. If God is that big that He could create a universe so large and be intricately involved in all of its details, if God cares enough about us to create this place, I can see that He is a lot higher and more powerful than I thought, and I see that He is willing to do a good thing. He gives us good things. He provides for us, children of God. Matthew 6 is making so much more sense now:
Matthew 6:25-34
25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life[e]?
28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
Another awesome thing is the songs of the stars. I recently heard that scientists discovered that stars are making music, or at least noise, but our ears cannot hear it. But it's there.
Why is this so awesome?
Because the Bible told the Truth! Psalm 19:1-4 says:
1 The heavens proclaim the glory of God.
The skies display his craftsmanship.
2 Day after day they continue to speak;
night after night they make him known.
3 They speak without a sound or word;
their voice is never heard.[a]
4 Yet their message has gone throughout the earth,
and their words to all the world.
The sky and everything in it is not just giving glory to God by looking glorious and proving that Someone amazing is out there and painted the skies.
[Do you realize since the sun was created by Jesus, there has always been a sunset somewhere on the earth. And there has always been a sunrise somewhere. 24/7 since it was created, there has been a sunrise AND a sunset at the same time. Even when the sun stood still (Joshua 10), there would've been a sunrise and sunset the whole time.]
Not only does the beauty of the sky give glory to God, but the VOICE of the sky literally "speak(s) without a sound or word....never heard."
I cannot wait until Jesus gets back. I wonder if when our ears are opened, if we will hear this ancient song the stars have sang to Jesus. I can just picture the wavelengths have been overwhelmingly been pouring all over us and around us like mighty waves of an ocean, yet we never knew it. I wonder how embarrassed I will be when my eyes and ears are open to my surroundings on that day and I come to realize all the glory of God I had been unaware of. I won't be embarrassed I never SAW or HEARD them. That's not my fault. I cannot humanly see or hear them (unless the Holy Spirit gives me spiritual eyes and ears). No, I will be embarrassed that I didn't have more FAITH in God. If I could see and hear it all now, I would have no need or room for faith. If you wait until you see something to believe, that's not faith. But I want to be one who even now with my natural eyes and ears only seeing this realm, to still believe that God exists and that He is more than able and more than willing to act on my behalf.
Hebrews 11:1 - Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we canot see.
So this is why I cannot sleep. haha. There is a realm all around us that we know not of, but it's so real. Everything we have seen our whole lives has come from it. But the spiritual realm I am speaking of is not dark or creepy or mystical in the bad sense. It has nothing to do with witchcraft or sorcery. It is light.
It is the kingdom of God. It is the kingdom of Heaven where God the Father and God the Son live. (the Holy Spirit - the 3rd person of the Triune God - lives in us Christians after believing in Jesus Christ) To give you an idea of this kingdom, here are a list of attributes I KNOW it has. These are the attributes of God Himself (galatians 5):
Love
Joy
Peace
Patience
Kindness
Goodness
Faithfulness
Gentleness
Self-control
I love this man - Jesus Christ.
Acts 16:
“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, along with everyone in your household.” .... Then he and everyone in his household were immediately baptized.
The Laws of Physics only apply to our universe. Before and outside the Universe, "matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed" does not apply. Besides, as I stated, the total energy of the Universe is zero.
But I don't even know why I'm bothering to reply.
In a nutshell; laws are just patterns, not rules.
I was thinking the same thing this morning when I opened my front door a floated off to the mailbox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
This thread is 11 pages long...so tl;dr...but did anyone point out that the title of this thread is a misnomer.
ENERGY cannot be created or destroyed.
Matter IS energy.
^^ A couple of times, I think, but it never hurts to point it out again, especially if it reignites this excellent thread!
But that's exactly what the title said. If energy cannot be created or destroyed, and matter is energy, then matter cannot be created or destroyed. It's exactly the same statement, not a "misnomer". :|
That's a pretty cool story, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rums03
Mm, thinking about the first couple pages of this thread...
About how all this could energy could come to be, and the seeming paradox with it coming from nothing.
How much do we know about the nothing?
Nothing is experienced as that which cannot be perceived, but just because it cannot be perceived does not explain it.
Could the God the OP is talking about be what we human's perceive as nothingness?
Was nothingness ever created? Is nothingness subject to the physical laws of the Universe?
How much can we truly know about nothing, and how many of our answers lay within its mystery?
Big Bang is a theory. Theory is not a fact. Only humans can pretend knowing the "beginning".
It is so hard for some of us to just accept the fact that we don't know. No scientist, no man in the world know the absolute truth.
We only have asumptions and beliefs.
But I love what Buddha said : "All is mind."
Scientists say: "All is energy."
I believe in buddhist theory... That our world, universe is just an illusion, it is mind, energy. Like the classic dreams. Dreams are not less real than this "life".
The movie matrix is based on that theory, philosophy (they just added machines). It looks real to our physical senses, while we are here. It changes your life when you truly understand it... that your life, your wold is just an projection of your mind, like your dreams. You begin to create a life of your dreams with your own mind. Your thoughts become matter. The phisical world is just atoms, energy, DATA. It vibrates, it is just particules, probabilities. Things apear solid but it is an illusion. Matter vibrates so fast that our can't see it. I think that everything is just data, conscioussness. I don't believe in a meaningless nature and universe. I don't believe in those scientific dogmas because for them everything is made by coincidences, accidents, chance...
Every Cause has its Effect; every Effect has its Cause.
"In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it." - Martin Rees
“The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” - Werner Heisenberg
You don't know what the word "theory" means. The Big Bang is a theory and a fact. It is an observed truth. It is as much a fact as the fact that New Zealand is smaller than Australia. It is incoherent to suggest that this is an "assumption". It isn't, it's an observation. You can't deny an observation.
"All is mind" is an empty statement. There is no observational difference between reality being "internal" and reality being "external", or being "real" or "not real". Therefore these terms are completely meaningless.
Haha you're so funny.
Theory doen't mean fact. Theory is an assumption. This is a fact, search it in a dictionairy.
When something is incontenstable you don't call it theory.
Based on the same observations another scientists have other theories. You should read all the theories about the universe :D
And you should know that 2 people observing the same thing will not see the same or have the same experience. It is relative.
Even reading the same book, people will see different things.
Not all scientist believe in that theory, There is so much others. But if you have FAITH in Big Bang good for you. But it is just Faith.
A fact is something you see, something you can experience, something you can reproduce...
I doubt you experienced or saw Big Bang. Or maybe you do I don't know ;)))
Even Einstein would be enough humble to admit that he is not sure... that he don't know.
How can you say that big bang is a fact when no one can experience it and no one did and no one will.
But maybe you're all knowing... lol
Since you were too arrogant to follow your own advice, I have searched the dictionary for you:Quote:
Originally Posted by astralboy
Noun
theory (sciences): A coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena, or which sets out the laws and principles of something known or observed; a hypothesis confirmed by observation, experiment etc. [from 17th c.]
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory
How can you say dinosaurs were a fact when no one can experience them and no one did and no one will?Quote:
How can you say that big bang is a fact when no one can experience it and no one did and no one will.
Do you think before you type?
It's called "evidence".
I don't see in that definition that THEORY means FACT... like you say :) Do you see the word FACT?! because I don't see it. lol
It is a set of ideas about some facts. But those ideas can be interpreted differently by different people.
You should understand that a theory is not a finish product...
With time it can be rejected, if new discoveries can't fit in it. It can be contradicted. Fact can't. So it is clearly 2 different things.
Sorry.
Lol your exemple of dinosaurs... nothing to do with Big Bang. What you call big bang evidence other people don't see it as evidence at all.
It is like the religious people... they see some weird things and they say "look it's a god's proof". You are blinded by your faith lol.
Theory is not a Fact. I have nothing more to say on this subject. Have a good day/night.
It's called a synonym. Stop pretending to not understand how synonyms work.Quote:
Originally Posted by astralboy
Which part of "a hypothesis confirmed by observation" was unclear? Give an example of a hypothesis confirmed by observation which is not a fact. Protip: you can't. Because they're synonymous.
It's called an analogy. Stop pretending to not understand how analogies work.Quote:
Lol your exemple of dinosaurs... nothing to do with Big Bang.
We accept dinosaurs as a fact because there is extant physical evidence of dinosaurs. We accept the Big Bang as a fact because there is extant physical evidence of the Big Bang. You have not stated a single difference between the two instances.
You believe in dinosaurs. You are blinded by your faith.Quote:
You are blinded by your faith lol.
Oh wait, that's a really dumb statement.
*sigh*
This is some expert shit posting.
I can't tell if he's trolling or not.
Allow me to explain scientific theories using gravity and evolution.
The fact of gravity: things fall.
The theory of gravity: two objects with mass distort space and share an attractive force between them, pulling them together.
The fact of evolution: populations of organisms change over time.
The theory of evolution: organisms with traits fit for their environment will survive to reproduce and propegate said traits through their offspring. Over time, these changes accumulate until populations separate into genetically distinct species.
Scientists don't just sit around making shit up about the Universe. They test hypotheses using scientific experiments and empirical evidence. We know the Universe is several billion years old because we can see stars whose light would take several billion years to reach Earth.
Science: it works, bitches!
I repeat Theory doesn't mean fact. And it is not synonym to fact but to the word assumption, idea, proposal...
Here you can see synonyms, antonyms of the word THEORY.
Theory Synonyms, Theory Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
I didn't invented it.
Like you see on that page it is more close to the word BELIEF. It is even the opposite of the word fact (Antonym). I'm sorry.
It is a belief, an assumption, based on the observations, phenomena. And I repeat those observations can be interpreted differently in the future or by other people in the present.There is other theories based on the same observations.
But yeah I understand that it is difficult for some people to accept that fact. It is the same when I talk with religious people.
You are like them, you just have faith in Big Bang instead of God :D But it is a belief.
Have a nice day :D
You're the zealot here. You've been clearly shown that "theory" has multiple definitions in dictionaries, and that in the context of "the theory of relativity" it doesn't mean "guess". And yet for some bizarre reason you refuse to change your mind. You're like the worst kind of religious idiot, shoving his fingers in his ears and shouting "lalala" when he's run out of arguments.
Do you think the theory of gravity is also a guess without observed evidence? Do you think number theory is a bunch of guesses about numbers?
You can just as well save energy and leave him be, Xei - I was on about, if dreams originate from the brain with him over - forgot how many pages.
He still believes, they don't - and he won't see reason here, either.
Theory has to be looked up in the agreed upon scientific usage - not everyday usage - this is an argumentative problem with many people, and we can't usually change it - people with weird own "theories" - here in the everyday usage - will always cling to only considering the meaning of the word in everyday usage and feel, that their sentiments stand on the same level in terms of validity.
Cheers.
Stole this from Zoth:
http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/...psa12fce8e.jpg
Theory Synonyms, Theory Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
Based on a dictionary Theory and Fact are not synonym but antonym. (opposite)
But You're right. The dictionary is wrong of course. HAHAHAH
And I don't know why you try to change the subject... I'm not talking about gravity. I never said that all theories are false. I just say that theory doesn't mean fact. And that it can be wrong.
Thesaurus.com is not a dictionary.
It's a thesaurus.
So a thesaurus is wrong and you're right? HAHAHA
thefreedictionary.com/theory
Check out the first definition.
I think he's just trolling. He's lying about being French at the very least, or he'd have surrendered ages ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeDragon97
Yeah I will check the definition you choose to accept and deny all others. Thats really interesting. LOL
"1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."
Why would I chose the number 1 ? And even the #1 doesn't say that it means FACT. It is a set of ideas to explain group of facts.
And those same statements can be explained differantly by others but I repat myself :)
You're really sad guys... You your dogma and your faith.
Pathetic
And xei You didn't answered my question :)
Why would you choose number one?
Because the big bang theory is a theory in the sense of number one, as any scientist will tell you - per definition - simple as.
Now I go save energy.
And what about this :
Theory Synonyms, Theory Antonyms | Thesaurus.com, which clearly shows that fact is an opposite of theory.
And what about even the #1, it doesn't say that a theory is an incontestable FACT.
And what about all others that say that a theory is just an assumption, a belief, an idea...
Why you chose what you read from a dictionary and reject the rest?
Xei, etal: why do you guys bother?
I never said fact and theory are synonymous - they aren't - but that's not what this is about.
Don't beat around the bush.
It is about that you put a specific scientific theory, which clearly belongs under number one, under the everyday usage of the word - and that is incorrect. See?
No?
Thought so.
Does it even matter where astralboy posts? He always has the exact same argument.
Nothing is certain! We get it astralboy. Now can you please not disrupt a perfectly fine discussion with your "theory is not fact" tripe.
All of us understand that concept, nothing is certain. Infinite probabilities make that not one theory can conclusively be proved.
However, we choose to make assumptions in theories because otherwise we couldn't even discuss this topic.
The truly erroneous part of your logic is that you keep stating things as fact, which goes exactly what you are pushing on us.
StephL I'm not talking to you.
Xei said that Theory is synonymous with fact I proved him that he's wrong. And even you confirm it now.
He say that I'm a "zealot" and "the worst kind of religious idiot" just because I'm saying the truth and I prove it with a dictionary and a thesaurus.
So Yeah theory is not a fact. So why talking about it as a fact? It is an assumption, it is quite solid but it is not fact :)
I don't understand why it is so hard to accept what is written in the dictionary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchraptor
You have to be really stupid to pretend knowing or "be certain" about something like this.
Are you really certain about the universe, life, humans? Really? If it is certain they would say it. And they won't call it "theory"...
Even scientists are more humble than many of you here. Even they would not talk about this as something as a certain fact!
The fact is that you don't know but you have a theory, an assumption, a belief. Accept it!
Then I have a quote for you : Stephen W. Hawking — 'The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'
I don't, I've given up. I just take heart in the fact that nobody capable of rational discourse will pay attention. He will go through life completely conceited with his incredible wisdom and completely ignored by anybody whose opinion actually matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
:lol:
Theory and fact are not exact synonyms. We get it. That said, a scientific theory is not a simple guess. It is a well-tested conclusion based on observations, evidence, and experiments. It is not faith.
With that out of the way, I'm done.
http://www.akk.org/~jagger/Bildchen/obvious-troll.jpg
This will be my only post on this subject, as I'm expecting astralboy to dissect my post on some odd semantic level, which I can't be bothered arguing against.
The problem here is that you are making theory out to be synomous with belief, which is not accurate in the context of science. The only fact of science, is that we have no facts. In science, a theory is the absolute form of knowledge and understanding, theories will never 'ascend' and become fact. On the previous page you quoted Freedictionary's definition on theory, and listed all the definitions, however only the first definition is relevant in our discussion. The other definitions are more loose and are not accurate for use in science.Quote:
Originally Posted by astralboy
As is roughly explained here, the purpose of a theory is to explain a phenomenon in such a way, that other scientists can reach identical results. The make up of a theory can be different, but there will always be an experiment and observation, that other scientists can attempt to replicate. If they reach identical results from which they can draw identical conclusions, then the theory must be true. It is still theory, but nobody can falsify it.Quote:
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
At the end of the day, we can not really be certain about anything. We just have to trust that scientific theories, which have all been vigurously tested, are correct, or at least correct enough, that we can build out knowledge on top of it.
If you want to have a taste of how important theories are in science, have a look at the ΛCDM model, which can be used to extrapolate the age of the universe. You don't have to read through or understand it, I just want you to click through all the different theories that are being utilized in order to devise the model. It's a lot. A whole lot. And that is not unique for the ΛCDM model. All the technology you are using in order to communicate on this webforum, is backed by a similar amount of theories.
That is why we are okay with 'believing' in scientific theories. Calling it 'blind belief' is absurd, given the things I've explained above.
^^ Nicely said, Marvo!
You know, I was going to write a sarcastic "Thank you" to Astralboy for destroying this thread, but now that I think about it, he may have done us a good service, given the very high quality of the responses to his nonsense.
So in a sense, Astralboy's trolling (or adamant adherence to a worldview that refuses to believe that any knowledge matters, which is the unlikely but honorable stance I'm kind or rooting for) was helpful, in a twisted, exasperating sort of way... it was even sort of on-topic, if you look at it with really squinty eyes.
So thanks Astralboy -- it might have not have been the result for which you had hoped, but you might have accidentally done a real service to this thread. It would be great, though, if you never did it again!
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein.
"Anti-social behavior is a trait of intelligence in a world full of conformists" - Nikola Tesla.
You make me laugh so much lol ... It is so fun to talk with you guys. :lol:
You are like sheep all following and liking each other posts...
You're in your own cercle with your programed thinking. You reassure each other with your own dogma.
While even a dictionaries are against you and while no scientist said that theory is a fact.
When you read a dictionary you search what you want to see and reject all the rest haha
Here, I'm like the first man who was against the quote "The earth is flat" lol!
Xei is calling me an idot, if he culd he would burn me like the people in the past did xD
You all have the same thinking, what is intelligent in that? I ask myself what is your I.Q score... not more than 80-90 I guess.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain
This quote is amazing! Because the majority are really like sheep, and that's sad to say.
There is only 2% of the world population that is really intelligent. Very few people have their own thoughts.
But I'm compassionate you know and I like you.
Because you're human... It is human to want have right even when dictionaries are against you.
It's called Ego :D
Peace :D
Sigh.
For what it's worth Astralboy, you're supposed to "read a dictionary [and] search what you want to see and reject all the rest." The point of all those definitions is that words can mean different things in different contexts, so only one definition will work for you and your given context (i.e. look up "dog," and then go down to the definition that talks about a dog being an andiron or steel clip --- does the inclusion of that definition mean that all dogs must be andirons?). That you don't know that is very telling, I think.
But thanks anyway, even if you do think we're all idiots (bad word to misspell, BTW) and ironically think we have a problem with ego.
You know Sageous I like you because in of one of my thread You had your own point of view. And that's cool.
Here I just wanted to tell that in no dictionary Theory means Fact. And like I showed it with this link Theory: Synonyms, Theory: Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
Belief, assumption, idea are close to the word theory. Fact is an opposite.
I don't know how the universe beginned.
You don't know it. (Think about it really, do you know it for sure? or you just believe what actual scientists say?)
Science have a theory, which is solid now in the present! It is not based on blind faith, but of some other facts, and observations...
but it remains a theory and not a certainty. Because interpretation can be different in the future.
So seriously people accept it. We don't know. We are not certain. KNOWING is not having a theory or assumptions.
Thank you very much lol.
I did not expect this response. I am truly flabbergasted. By the looks of it, you didn't even read my post, you just looked at how many people liked it, and then decided to call us all sub average intelligence sheep. Neat.Quote:
Originally Posted by astralboy
http://i.imgur.com/2vJCPBW.jpg
This is all well and good, and you really are not wrong, theories are constantly undergoing changes in order to conform to new observations, that may bring earlier conclusions into question. However, we will never get anywhere, if the assumption is that 'anything we think we know now, might be seen as inaccurate in the future, so we might as well assume we are wrong now and discard current theories'.Quote:
Originally Posted by astralboy
The premise of this thread was shit from minute one. I actually came in here to laugh at stupid people, when I saw it was active, but I certainly got a lot more than I bargained for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
No, seriously, you don't know what a thesaurus is or how to use one.Quote:
Originally Posted by astralboy
What is a thesaurus actually? It's not really a word I ever encountered.
^^ A thesaurus is basically a listing of synonyms, antonyms, and related words. It's used generally as a tool for writers to make their work more interesting, or less intelligible, as it were, and is by no means a tool for scholarly research or definition.
It's for getting synonyms. If you find that you awkwardly keep using the same word in a poem, you would consult a thesaurus to find one of its variants. Or if you wanted to look clever you would consult a thesaurus to find a big word that means the same thing as a small one.
astralboy has found a thesaurus entry for one definition of the word "theory", but it doesn't provide synonyms for other less common definitions such as in "number theory" or "the theory of gravitation", which would be words like "corpus" and "scheme" respectively.
Yeah, I'm not like you... I'm not ALL KNOWING :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I thought you given up? lol
Attachment 6489
Yeah you're a troll.
:
;
I'm so sorry!
Yeah of course! I AM WRONG.
"A thesaurus is basically a listing of synonyms, antonyms, and related words."
Of course! so it is wrong! Dictionary is wrong too.
A thesaurus is just made to list words and wrong meaning. Of Course. LOL
HAHAH you killed me!
I'm gonna leave you now in your illusion of KNOWING. lol
I don't know.. I feel so humble in front f you people, really. xD
I know it sounds unbelievable, but yes, you are!Quote:
Originally Posted by astralboy
You should. We study actual sciences, such as math and computer science. And we are mere sheep.
could you ever have a reason to say theory means fact?Quote:
Originally Posted by astralboy
what is the object going to zero?Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkenArse
I don't even know what to do or say at this point, astralboy. You're clearly trolling, yet... I have this oddly strong suspicion that you're actually being serious.
I... I need to lie down... my head hurts.
Lol I found this on my facebook.
I have to share it with you.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...64601152_n.png
Off topic:
That's the forum-software - once it's up - I can make it bigger by clicking the thumbnail, right-click, copy img url - then the usual - per symbol. What I do - I have a free photobucket account and directly get an img code to paste from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Weell - I understand that sentiment...:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
Having a bit of an appetite for such as well - I even went back and got myself into some ramblings.
Just ignore me, if you wish - but maybe there is hope left for this thread.
Since our boy from the astral plane still shows appetite for munching over semantics: Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
That won't do it either - but better than discuss on the basis of the thesaurus, schnesaurus...:roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Aaha. I know, we will cause a heap of joy somewhere in France, when we throw string-theory and also M-theory in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maria92
Soo - which "theory-status" does it actually have? Shouldn't it rather be called hypothesis following the above? Well - it is not denominated as "scientific theory" - just "theory"..?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Is it still considered a candidate for the "Theory Of Everything" - bringing together General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?
First of all - most of what you call critters definitively do experience time. They can learn from past experiences, they age, they lay in wait for their prey. Take out your pet's favourite toy - it will associate with that the expectation, that sooon - there's gonna be fun - and so forth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
It wasn't stated with an "=" by anyone. But without time, there would be no movement - lets better say motion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
And nope, motion is not "the result of force acting on an object, period".
Since everything is in motion anyway - you need the force to change that motion - away from ultimately simply going towards increasing overall entropy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
I hope, this is clearing matters up a bit.
But I am basically saying what Darkmatters has tried to say before.
For the sake of taking a stab at "existence":
The latter point is where you build your argument from, correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
But you do concede, that motion does exist independently from an observer, and since there is no motion without time, per definition - time does exist on the same level as motion does.
Intangible - but real enough.
And - we have time as in irreversible - per the laws of thermodynamics:
Yupp. Processes are undergone in time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ifuturist
I had actually planned on furthering out your post - or simplifying it - but I don't manage to concisely explain the relationship between time and entropy.
Maybe you - or anybody could do that - not in the respect, that our universe didn't exist since eternity - more towards countering the assumption, that time is only something psychological in humans?
Now - if you are still with us DrunkenArse (:D) - I suppose you mean general relativity breaking down under the conditions of the big bang?Quote:
Originally Posted by episode24
Going to zero would be the width - the spacial distribution of matter in this case, did I get this correctly?
And as far as I understand further - according to quantum-theory - there are limits concerning the concentration of mass and the strength of gravity. And that doesn't fit the Einsteinian singularity notion and space-time as a continuum.
I have unearthed a German Scientific American from 2009 flying about here as toilet entertainment - I will feed myself with the lead article on exactly our topic further - "The cosmos before the big bang - did our universe have a predecessor?".
It is written by a proponent of "Loop Quantum Gravity". This gets mentioned side by side with string theory and something called "Causal Dynamic Triangulation".
I just started reading - but I want to post now anyway.
What seems to follow from that viewpoint is that space-time is actually grainy - consisting of particles. :shock:
I agree with that quote. However, no one here is saying they never wonder or that they are dead sure about everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by astralboy
What we are saying is that when all evidence points to one conclusion, throwing your hands in the air and saying, "Well, we can never know anything!" is just fucking stupid.
Yes, it is true that we fallible mortal monkeys are limited by our senses and experiences and everything could be an illusion, but it is completely pointless to live according to that. We have to learn from observation and experience. It's all we have.
:offtopic:
Please keep this on topic! ...some posts may have mysteriously disappeared.
Nominated for Quote of the Millennium. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeDragon97
Yeah it works.
But the problem is that science never talked about Theory as a dead sure FACT. I repeat myself =)
Science is one thing, theory is another, and your interpretation of that theory is another, and your faith is another.
Don't protect yourself with the word "science" because no scientist will tell you that it is a certanity, a fact.
It is a theory, an assumption, an ideas based on the observations.
Neither did we. We defined a theory by what it is. Or at least I did. You would know this if you actually read my post I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by astralboy
i think it's pretty obvious what he's calling out
Enlighten me.Quote:
Originally Posted by episode24
I don't know if "assumption" is the right word. Theories have enough evidence backing them up that we can say that they are most likely what is. I guess you could consider that an assumption, albeit a wise one.Quote:
Originally Posted by astralboy
i assume you have 10 fingers. i assume you have 8 toes on each foot. both assumptions are theories until i meet you in person and can observe the fact of the matter. we can agree one assumption is "wiser" than the other since this part of human anatomy is common knowledge. when i speculate about someday learning the truth about you by meeting you in person, i'm assuming i might ever get that chance. it's a theory. i might never know.
when it comes to my own body, it's a fact i have 4 fingers and 2 toes because i can observe them.
this difference between fact and theory is what astralboy was defending. he called out xei for claiming they meant the same thing. wow this place is boring
Except you're using the incorrect definition of theory again.
Ah, so you support scientific observation. Good to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by episode24
OMG at least one understood lol.
episode24... they don't want to understand even if you show them a dictionary they will try to search thing that go with their faith.
It is the same with jeohava's witnesses! even when you show them verses that contradict them... from their bible ... they don't believe you.
KNOWLEDGE is not theory,
knowledge is not reading about something,
knowledge is not having assumptions,
knowledge is not believing,
...
Knowlege is when you experience something. Reading that you fly and flying are 2 different things.
You KNOW nothing about the beginning since you didn't experienced it, no one did and no one ever will.
You can have faith in your theory but never KNOWING FOR SURE.
Don't lie to yourself, don't pretend knowing, even if you're programmed with that dogma.
Yeah maybe it reasure you that science have a theory but the fact is that you don't know and they don't know,
but you have an assumtion or an interpretation of some observable facts or phenomena.
I say interpretation and assumptions, not knowledge. There is facts in the universe but no fact say "hey! the big bang made me".
That's why it is ONLY a Theory. NOT dead sure fact. Not a knowledge.
Be very careful when you use the verb "know"... When you say "I know" do you know really?
Religious people tell you that they KNOW things about God because they read books LOL!
You think you KNOW "the beginning" because you read another books!
People are often mistaken about what they think they've experienced.
A person can have a powerful emotional experience at church and confuse that with experiencing the power of the lord. How do you analyze what you've experienced to determine the true nature of it?
Science is the best bullshit detector we've come up with yet.
This is a good description of what you're doing.Quote:
they don't want to understand even if you show them a dictionary they will try to search thing that go with their faith.
It is the same with jeohava's witnesses! even when you show them verses that contradict them... from their bible ... they don't believe you.
Like I said "There is facts in the universe but no fact say "hey! the big bang made me"."
It is the same with experiences... if you had a powerful emotional experience at church it is a fact that you had a powerful emotional experience.
That experience doesn't tell you "hey God made me!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by astralboy
So you agree with me at least up to a point.
But the question is, how do you figure out what are the 'facts in the universe" and what aren't?Quote:
Originally Posted by astralboy
We all agree that scientific theories can't be undeniably and unequivocally called absolute facts - that's why scientists never refer to them that way, unless it's in an unguarded moment and for the sake of convenience - it's tiring to always have to say "as far as we've been able to determine".
But you keep talking as if somehow you personally are able to separate the real facts from fallacies, and do so with more accuracy than all of science. How do you do that?
So yeah. If you don't know for sure you say I don't know but I have a theory, that's what scientists do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
I don't have a problem with them but with you all.
Because you talk as if you KNOW for sure. As if it was a Fact.
I don't believe scientific theories are absolute facts. In fact it's well known that they're only the best models we've been able to come up with so far, and that periodically with new discoveries we'll be able to revise them or in some cases invalidate them.
I'd say the difference between you and me is that I don't believe we definitely know anything for an absolute fact, the best we can do is develop scientific theories and test them, but you seem to feel that you have some authority to say what is and isn't an absolute truth. Or am I wrong about that?
i didn't know i had other optionsQuote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
are you a duckQuote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
I say "I don't know" nothing more. I don't know the absolute truth and it is the same for you. So don't pretend knowing (you or others) or talk about it with certainity. Often when people talk me about big bang they talk about it as if it was THE BIG TRUTH. Some people here are really blinded by their faith and their ignorence of knowing. Why it is so hard to say the simple truth "I don't know"?
Fact is when you KNOW. When you know for sure the cause and the effect...
When you can reproduce it, observe it, experience it, repeat the experience...
Big Bang is not observable, experimentable, reproducible, no one can see it. No one KNOW the cause because etc...
It is so far from the word FACT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by episode24
Well, I can float in water, but I don't quack or say Aflack so no, a simple test shows I'm not a duck, and no, you can't burn me!
@ Astralboy - as I already told you, I do not believe scientific theories are absolute facts. So we're in agreement and no reason to continue arguing. Yes, there are science fanatics - I'm not one of them, and I don't think most people on this thread are either.
hm maybe you're a woman then and you need me to show you how i know
You make me feel so cheap!
Next time you ought to shell out the extra dough for a keyboard that has punctuation!
shh here's your allowance money now why don't you do a little shopping and buy me the one you like?
ok maybe creation theories should be separate from the rest then.Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeDragon97
we use the word theory to represent a group of hypotheses about the nature of something. these hypotheses are supported by evidence/observations/facts. if all hypotheses are proven to be true, then a theory evolves into its final form - a physical law or axiom. one example of an evolved theory is what we now call heliocentrism.
this [observations => hypotheses => theory] sequence/pattern/rule for reasoning defines the act of theorizing always and forever with one exception - creation theories. creation theories are special because they are the truth too.
The matter at hand here is that astralboy is being pedantic.
Numerous times we've established that a theory is not an absolute fact, however in the context of a discussion it is reasonable to mention it as such.
As Darkmatters said, notifying everyone that a theory is not fact within every sentence is complete nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by episode24
http://www.toyota-4runner.org/attach...kee-peewee.jpg
(is this really the level on which you like to discuss science?)
Pfft.
There was me two pages ago looking into Loop Quantum Gravity - no - not so - not going to invest time into this thread.
