Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An honest answer for a newbie, please.
steppjr
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 125 (16586)
09-04-2002 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by gene90
09-04-2002 4:36 PM


Well Stephen Hawking wrote the book and it was published last year. I know there are papers on the subject but they are very technical and most would not understand. The book puts it in a easy light to read and understand so that is why I quoted it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by gene90, posted 09-04-2002 4:36 PM gene90 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 125 (16600)
09-05-2002 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by steppjr
09-04-2002 12:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by steppjr:
If you read the new book the universe in a nutshell you will hear the latest idea as to what was around before the big bang. It has to do with the fact that there are more than the 3 dimensions that we see. There are 11 dimensions to the world; just we don’t see them all as we do the three spatial ones. The theory says that the explosion that created our universe might have happened inside one of the other 7 dimensions that are outside our own. And this other dimension is thought to be infinitely large. I hope this has answered your question. This would also allow the laws of physics to exist before out universe was created. This is the same idea as I posted before about the brane worlds.
[This message has been edited by steppjr, 09-04-2002]

Hawkings book is good one, but remember the part in there about there not being any strong experimental evidence for the brane theories? The jury is still out.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by steppjr, posted 09-04-2002 12:29 PM steppjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by steppjr, posted 09-05-2002 2:35 PM John has not replied

steppjr
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 125 (16651)
09-05-2002 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by John
09-05-2002 12:26 AM


So true! Lets just hope that they get some before long! I really liked the way it talks about how black holes are probably the only thing that can connect the brane worlds. This fits very nicely with the new quantum brain theory. The theory stated that every time a memory or a thought happens a virtual black hole is formed in the brain. And if this other dimension were infinitely large, that would account for the infinitely large memory capacity of our brains. It juts all fits together a little too well to be a mishap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by John, posted 09-05-2002 12:26 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 11-17-2002 8:22 AM steppjr has not replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 125 (22379)
11-12-2002 4:52 PM


this is to john, for a clarification... hi there john ... you were talking 'bout the big bang not having a cause, and quoted (or mentioned) hawking as the authority (granted, you didn't appeal to authority, but i agree with you that it's foolish to ignore a mind such as his)...
anyway, you appear to be saying "that which begins to exist has no cause" or "for *every* effect there isn't a necessary cause" or something like that... is this in fact the case? or does it only apply to that which begins to exist before anything exists? nah that couldn't be it, cause even if it's that it would *still* fit within the premise i quoted...
did the universe begin to exist? i guess it depends on your view of cosmology... if you accept bb for the sake of argument, i assume you agree that the universe began to exist (and along with it space/time?)... anyway, a little clarification if you please... thanks
[This message has been edited by forgiven, 11-12-2002]
[This message has been edited by forgiven, 11-12-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by John, posted 11-13-2002 12:51 AM forgiven has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 125 (22421)
11-13-2002 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by forgiven
11-12-2002 4:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
anyway, you appear to be saying "that which begins to exist has no cause" or "for *every* effect there isn't a necessary cause" or something like that... is this in fact the case?
Its more like all of our notions about causality are tied to the world around us-- to spacetime. Things happen sequentially. Things move through space. Remove time and space and try to imagine causality. It is like trying to define Cartesian coordinates without the Cartesian or the coordinates.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by forgiven, posted 11-12-2002 4:52 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by forgiven, posted 11-13-2002 7:54 AM John has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 125 (22453)
11-13-2002 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by John
11-13-2002 12:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
anyway, you appear to be saying "that which begins to exist has no cause" or "for *every* effect there isn't a necessary cause" or something like that... is this in fact the case?
Its more like all of our notions about causality are tied to the world around us-- to spacetime. Things happen sequentially. Things move through space. Remove time and space and try to imagine causality. It is like trying to define Cartesian coordinates without the Cartesian or the coordinates.

i still don't quite understand how that ties in with what i asked... maybe i skipped a step... in your opinion, did the universe 1) begin to exist or has it 2) always existed?
if 1), do you affirm or deny the premises "that which begins to exist has a cause"... if 2), well we'll deal with that later, if that's your position... note that i'm not asking you for any kind of explanation as to *when* the cause existed, if it existed, given the nature of space/time, i merely want to know if you affirm or deny the above premise

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by John, posted 11-13-2002 12:51 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by John, posted 11-13-2002 9:30 AM forgiven has replied
 Message 23 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-13-2002 9:44 AM forgiven has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 125 (22466)
11-13-2002 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by forgiven
11-13-2002 7:54 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
in your opinion, did the universe 1) begin to exist or has it 2) always existed?
There is a pretty good case for the former and a pretty good case against the latter. In both cases using the concept of beginning almost colloquially.
quote:
if 1), do you affirm or deny the premises "that which begins to exist has a cause"...
This is where what I said earlier has relevance. Cause and effect exist in the space-time we inhabit. However, at the extremes -- black holes and singularities-- all the rules change. In other words, in the case of the universe itself, the question simply doesn't make sense.
quote:
note that i'm not asking you for any kind of explanation as to *when* the cause existed, if it existed, given the nature of space/time, i merely want to know if you affirm or deny the above premise
But you are asking *when* Cause and effect requires an element of time. This, I think, is the part you are missing.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by forgiven, posted 11-13-2002 7:54 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by forgiven, posted 11-13-2002 1:33 PM John has not replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 125 (22468)
11-13-2002 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by forgiven
11-13-2002 7:54 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
anyway, you appear to be saying "that which begins to exist has no cause" or "for *every* effect there isn't a necessary cause" or something like that... is this in fact the case?
Its more like all of our notions about causality are tied to the world around us-- to spacetime. Things happen sequentially. Things move through space. Remove time and space and try to imagine causality. It is like trying to define Cartesian coordinates without the Cartesian or the coordinates.

i still don't quite understand how that ties in with what i asked... maybe i skipped a step... in your opinion, did the universe 1) begin to exist or has it 2) always existed?
if 1), do you affirm or deny the premises "that which begins to exist has a cause"... if 2), well we'll deal with that later, if that's your position... note that i'm not asking you for any kind of explanation as to *when* the cause existed, if it existed, given the nature of space/time, i merely want to know if you affirm or deny the above premise

Hi Forgiven,
My take on this is that everything on a scale greater than a Planck length has a cause which may or may not have existed prior in time (direction of entropy increasing).
Cheers
PE
------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by forgiven, posted 11-13-2002 7:54 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by forgiven, posted 11-13-2002 1:38 PM Primordial Egg has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 125 (22511)
11-13-2002 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by John
11-13-2002 9:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
in your opinion, did the universe 1) begin to exist or has it 2) always existed?
There is a pretty good case for the former and a pretty good case against the latter. In both cases using the concept of beginning almost colloquially.
quote:
if 1), do you affirm or deny the premises "that which begins to exist has a cause"...
This is where what I said earlier has relevance. Cause and effect exist in the space-time we inhabit. However, at the extremes -- black holes and singularities-- all the rules change. In other words, in the case of the universe itself, the question simply doesn't make sense.
sigh... why is this so difficult? seems like you can say either "i afirm" or "i deny" the premise... since you can't logically do both, you must do one... what's the problem?
quote:
note that i'm not asking you for any kind of explanation as to *when* the cause existed, if it existed, given the nature of space/time, i merely want to know if you affirm or deny the above premise
But you are asking *when* Cause and effect requires an element of time. This, I think, is the part you are missing.

i'm not missing anything... i simply asked you a question and specifically said i'm *not* interested in when.. then you tell me i am... my question had nothing to do with anything other than, "do you deny or affirm the following premise: that which begins to exist has a cause"... that is all.. if you don't know, say so.. if you don't want to answer, say so

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by John, posted 11-13-2002 9:30 AM John has not replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 125 (22513)
11-13-2002 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Primordial Egg
11-13-2002 9:44 AM


hi p.e.
quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
anyway, you appear to be saying "that which begins to exist has no cause" or "for *every* effect there isn't a necessary cause" or something like that... is this in fact the case?
Its more like all of our notions about causality are tied to the world around us-- to spacetime. Things happen sequentially. Things move through space. Remove time and space and try to imagine causality. It is like trying to define Cartesian coordinates without the Cartesian or the coordinates.

i still don't quite understand how that ties in with what i asked... maybe i skipped a step... in your opinion, did the universe 1) begin to exist or has it 2) always existed?
if 1), do you affirm or deny the premises "that which begins to exist has a cause"... if 2), well we'll deal with that later, if that's your position... note that i'm not asking you for any kind of explanation as to *when* the cause existed, if it existed, given the nature of space/time, i merely want to know if you affirm or deny the above premise

Hi Forgiven,
My take on this is that everything on a scale greater than a Planck length has a cause which may or may not have existed prior in time (direction of entropy increasing).
Cheers
PE

ok, that's fine... in that case, the universe either is or isn't on a scale greater than a planck length.. all i kept asking john was whether or not he affirmed or denied a certain premise.. it seems very difficult to get an answer to that question, which makes me wonder why

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-13-2002 9:44 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by John, posted 11-13-2002 3:21 PM forgiven has replied
 Message 35 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-14-2002 8:24 AM forgiven has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 125 (22523)
11-13-2002 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by forgiven
11-13-2002 1:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
ok, that's fine... in that case, the universe either is or isn't on a scale greater than a planck length.. all i kept asking john was whether or not he affirmed or denied a certain premise.. it seems very difficult to get an answer to that question, which makes me wonder why

Do you want the honest complicated answer, which is what I gave you, or do you want the simple dishonest one?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by forgiven, posted 11-13-2002 1:38 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by forgiven, posted 11-13-2002 4:00 PM John has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 125 (22528)
11-13-2002 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by John
11-13-2002 3:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
ok, that's fine... in that case, the universe either is or isn't on a scale greater than a planck length.. all i kept asking john was whether or not he affirmed or denied a certain premise.. it seems very difficult to get an answer to that question, which makes me wonder why
Do you want the honest complicated answer, which is what I gave you, or do you want the simple dishonest one?

sigh... you gave me no answer at all, neither honest nor complicated nor simple nor dishonest... i have no idea from anything you wrote whether or not you believe that "that which begins to exist has a cause"... it's a simple question, and how in the world can an honest answer to a simple question be dishonest? but if you wish to categorize it as such, then i want the simple dishonest (sic) answer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by John, posted 11-13-2002 3:21 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by John, posted 11-13-2002 5:00 PM forgiven has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 125 (22539)
11-13-2002 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by forgiven
11-13-2002 4:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
sigh... you gave me no answer at all, neither honest nor complicated nor simple nor dishonest... i have no idea from anything you wrote whether or not you believe that "that which begins to exist has a cause"... it's a simple question, and how in the world can an honest answer to a simple question be dishonest? but if you wish to categorize it as such, then i want the simple dishonest (sic) answer

It isn't a simple question. It is a question about the fundamental structure of reality. You don't seem to realize that.
Within the boundaries of our experience things seem to most often have causes. Outside of that experience all bets are off. Space-time collapses at the extremes. What happens at those point is not known.
Ever heard of the Casimir effect? It is worth looking into. It appears to be a measure of the force exerted by particles spontaneously popping into and quickly back out off existence.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by forgiven, posted 11-13-2002 4:00 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by forgiven, posted 11-13-2002 8:27 PM John has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 125 (22578)
11-13-2002 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by John
11-13-2002 5:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
sigh... you gave me no answer at all, neither honest nor complicated nor simple nor dishonest... i have no idea from anything you wrote whether or not you believe that "that which begins to exist has a cause"... it's a simple question, and how in the world can an honest answer to a simple question be dishonest? but if you wish to categorize it as such, then i want the simple dishonest (sic) answer

It isn't a simple question. It is a question about the fundamental structure of reality. You don't seem to realize that.
Within the boundaries of our experience things seem to most often have causes. Outside of that experience all bets are off. Space-time collapses at the extremes. What happens at those point is not known.
Ever heard of the Casimir effect? It is worth looking into. It appears to be a measure of the force exerted by particles spontaneously popping into and quickly back out off existence.

yet another non-reply, neither simple nor complicated nor honest nor dishonest... what i don't seem to realize is why you appear to fear answering the question, given the number of times it's been asked and the number of opportunities you've had to answer it
why don't we do it this way? i'll frame the argument, you tell me whether or not you agree with each premise... if not, tell me (and other interested parties) why not... it goes without saying that if a premise is false so is the conclusion, but you shouldn't be allowed to to simply disagree without framing responses as to why
(i) that which begins to exist has a cause
(ii) john (he of the non-answers to whom i write) began to exist
therefore, john had a cause

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by John, posted 11-13-2002 5:00 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by compmage, posted 11-14-2002 12:02 AM forgiven has replied
 Message 32 by John, posted 11-14-2002 2:06 AM forgiven has replied

Lemming
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 125 (22588)
11-13-2002 9:36 PM


would like to know how that person found out about the 11 dimension... and why only 11 how did he/she work this number out?
In this book did he/she state how he/she got the figure ?
i know i have a wild imagination just check out my Evolution post on here but to say there is 11 dimension with no recorded facts is out of my league.....

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024