The infinite space of the Universe

quote:

---

The operative factor is that if you'd like to compare a natural process like reproduction to what auto manufacturers do in an assembly line then ok, whatever.

---

There's no such thing as nature or natural - technically. These are terms we use for the inexplicable only, same as with a belief premise. The act of a car's reproduction manifests reproduction, same as a life offspring. The seed factor applies in both instances, wherein the car making instruction is a seed, same as the dna in a life form is the seed. There is an emulation here.

quote:

---

What are you saying that you want to just answer these questions with 'God did it'?

---

The issue of HOW and WHO DONE IT - are two totally seperate issues. Discovering the HOW does not prove or disprove the WHO DONE IT. If for example, we have a car making instruction manual, this has no impact on the WHO DONE IT. Science denotes the HOW. With regard the creator premise, your question is a moot one, because it is not as though you have an alternative scenario.In fact you are ridiculing and rejecting a logical premise, while putting nothing to replace it. I nominate the creator premise subsequent to an absolute vacancy in any possible alternatives, and conclude, very scientifically and logically - Creation and Monotheism are indispensible scenarios. When we discover a HOW, we are discovering a process at work only [Eg. Evolution], and when we try to delve any further to come to the exciting part - we find a brick wall - and what we call NATURE is that brick wall - and there is nothing natural about this - it is just a brick wall and an enigma.

The measurement of the bar's straightness is irrelevant. As a model for the purpose of this debate, assume it is perfectly straight, what is relevant is the properties of the bar. You have yet to explain what properties the bar has to bend and reconnect to the base of it's beginning, resting perpendicular to the surface of the earth.Also what properties of space is capable of bending the perfectly straight bar of steel to reconnect itself. Edited by Buzsaw, : Spelling

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

quote:

---

I don't need a god but life and the universe don't make a millionth of a percent sense. Their existence just don't make ANY sense, whatsoever. Everything is so pointless, yet everything is real and existing, it's frightening...

​

This is a human perspective, to the Universe YOU don't make sense. There's a great book written by the Dalai Lama called, "The Universe in a single Atom", it may be a good read for you.

---

Actually, that is not just a human perspective [duh!as opposed what else!?]. It is actually an accurate and honest perspective. The universe and life does not make sense: we see ultimate engineering works and constructs every place we look, with no purpose in sight. Logically, the question of WHY transcends and prempts the HOW factor. Consider which issue comes first when you build a house, is it not the WHY?It is also un-natural we don't panic about death looming, but become panic stricken if our car is stolen. This appears only explainable by a certain enzyme or wiring contained in the life program, which actually stops us from panicing about what we cannot control: it denotes an intelligence, rather than anything else we can imagine. Significantly, while science does not attend the WHY factor, which is a correct path else it would not be science - this issue is only dealth with in the OT.Namely, this ultimate and logical question was asked by Moses - it would be the only question any red blooded scientist would ask had he had such an opportunity. Humans cannot be satisfied without seeking the WHY factor. But I won't deviate to the adam and eve metaphor here. The WHY factor is outside of science, but not outside what we want to know.

The whole point is the bar doesn't bend. It remains perfectly straight all the way around. You don't know what straight means. And exercising obstinacy won't lead to understanding.

---

KindlyA mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

Lyx2no,Thanks for the compliments.You'll have to forgive me for destroying your model. I do have a bad habit of confusing the issues well beyond my understanding. It isn't quite as much fun as confusing the issues beyond the ability of my colleagues to address in their models by the situations I can imagine. Of course they do have a tendency to attempt to get even. That's what makes learning fun.

Which part of reproduction is inexplicable to you? You are trying to take the arguement deeper than it is. 2 cars don't make a baby car period! Is that laymen enough for you? Life is just that, a natural process of reproduction, don't try and get into a semantical arguement about the word natural. Things reproduce other things naturally from now to the end of time, cars however, rust and end up on E-bay. Life continues on its own on Earth, on Jupiter, or on a galaxy billions of light years away, this is something you can't disprove. The only reason the HOW would disprove the WHO is because we have specific claims made by the WHO. If the HOW is evolution, which all of science agrees it is, then NONE of the creation stories from all of the different relgions are accurate. Now, if you'd like to say that your creator isn't affiliated with any religions, like what ID says, then I must ask you to explain what you mean by creator. Because at that point it just sounds like nature. However, if you'd like to say that nature is God, or that in your opinion you don't see nature you see God as the entity behind everything we think is natural, then hey I got no problem with that. Its not scientific but, then again its just your opinion so it doesn't have to be. Again I'll ask, an alternative to what? Anything you've been able to postulate?When you say creator can you be more specific? What kind of a creator? Theistic? Metaphoric? I don't think you are understanding my position, I don't think you have a logical premise therefore im not required to replace it with anything. Only to those who lack the ability to understand it properly. All there is is the HOW, the WHO is imagined. Life is a continuous process at work never stopping. At any point in the history of the Universe you will only be able study the HOW, the WHO didn't exist till a bunch of apes left the trees and grew a large brain giving them an imagination to be able to postulate a WHO. The nature is the HOW and the HOW is all we can study. In science brick walls are only temporary and get knocked down as time and technology progress. Thats just the history of science.

---

All great truths begin as blasphemiesI smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth.

So again I'll say this is a human perspective, and to answer the question "as opposed to what?", as opposed to everything else that is in existance. Do you see anything else in nature that asks those questions? Just us, we think those questions merit an answer when they don't. Those are just questions an imaginative species postulated, the Universe is not impressed. They Universe could give a fuck about us. It is obviously natural to not worry about death since we don't see any other organism worrying about death other than us. That doesn't give us the right to just pull any idea out of our ass to answer they WHY just because it satisfies.

---

All great truths begin as blasphemiesI smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth.

Buz you could of at least tried to answer Lyx2No's question. It is pretty darn relevant.
What is perfectly straight? No deviations from a single direction? No deviations in space?
If the space itself is curved.......... Well you work the rest out for yourself.
However the bar itself remains perfectly straight. The bar itself doesn't need to bend or deviate to reconnect. That is the point.Think of your steel bar as a having a small laser attached at the point where you are holding the bar. This produces a laser beam. A perfectly straight laser beam shining along perfectly parallel to the steel bar just above the surface of the steel bar.
At what point would you expect the paths of the perfectly straight laser and the perfectly straight steel bar to separate? Which one of the two do you consider to be "straight"?Do you see the point?

quote:

---

2 cars don't make a baby car period!

---

But reproduction of cars is not debatable, nor that the car maker makes cars. Reproduction of cars happen.

quote:

---

When you say creator can you be more specific? What kind of a creator? Theistic? Metaphoric?

---

No, I cannot. Nor is there any requirement to do so. A car does not have to answer this question in order to prove a car maker.

quote:

---

All there is is the HOW, the WHO is imagined. Life is a continuous process at work never stopping.

---

The WHO is not imagined but real and indispensible. Life is not a continuous process - it started very recently, and did not exist at one time. This makes the WHO DONE IT not an voidable factor in the equation. Its like a pink car suddenly appearing in your bedroom this morning, and here you cannot connect the dots to billions of light years and subatomic BB particles.

quote:

---

I don't think you are understanding my position, I don't think you have a logical premise therefore im not required to replace it with anything.

---

On the other hand, you don't have a logical premise of your own, and there is also nothing to understand in it. Nothing [NATURE]is not logical too. And your standing in it. You are selecting what you like as having a source maker - which is a fractured fairy tale, as opposed a science.

INFINITY OF SPACE.By far the more interesting question is, what if space, and all the universe content, IS finite. Here, we end up with a brick wall, but we call this 'nature'. What's so 'natural' about it?

No Buzz, you are talking about your own infinitesimal experience of reality. Are you really so naive as to think that what you perceive as the 'the way things are' in your small area of life is somehow not just slightly applicable to the Universe at large, but is sufficiently all-encompassing that it gives you the ability to declare false that which scientists, who have dedicated their lives to the subject, suggest is true? Grow up! (what is it about old dogs and new tricks?)Perhaps you'd like to give me a definition of 'perfectly straight'? Buz, you really need to check that reading comprehension - or the glasses. No-one has said that this is how the Universe behaves - this is how the Universe behaves *IF* it is closed, and *IF* the expansion were to halt so that we can talk about this particular property. And how the Universe behaves has nothing to do with steel bars or any other such object.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

I presented no models. Models are designed to be essentially full and accurate representations of reality. Mine were merely single aspect illustrations.The 3-D curvature of the Earth is an analogy for the higher order curvature of space-time. In the building of an Earth bound, brick wall I would have to contend with oceans and mountains that add no illustrative component to the explanation, and so can be swept away in our imaginations. The same can be done with large, iron or deposits that would deflect our compasses; and salt domes that send the little needles in our gravity meters scampering off to the left. Every aspect that detracts from the point to be illustrated can be treated thus to leave standing the soul aspect under our consideration: the geometry of a sphere.But if we’re going to erase everything that makes the Earth the Earth, why use the Earth at all and not a generic sphere? Because not everything about the Earth is a distraction. Folks are familiar with it. (Not that our familiarity with it is a property of its own, but it’s a thing that we can employ.) Folks ” well, most folks, anyway ” can modify it in their imaginations to suit the situation at hand. They can erase the gravitational anomalies ” if they knew of them at all, at all ” while retaining the well behaved gravity that keeps them bound to the surface, and keeps their brick in order. Ah! The beauty of the imagination.The potato illustrated the fact that one not even remove the irregularities of the geometry to get the perimeter to return to its own starting point. The probability that this will happen is one. I’m thinking the latter part of your claim: is akin to my not dating Brittany Spears because I think she’s a tramp. I believe you are sincere when you claim you don’t have the computing power to get “one”.If I were to send a projectile off into space it would, in fairly short order Universe-wise, end up orbiting something else. Where exactly it would end up is indeed impossible to predict due to, as you point out, chaos. I didn’t miss that. I merely recognized it as an unnecessary distraction. Well . don’t. Addressed enough for you? I develop very strong emotional attachments to my little illustration and become very protective of them. And when they are abused by twerps such as yourself, I lock them safely away in a tin cookie box in my underwear draw here in the basement of my mother’s house where I live. Don’t screw with my analogies. I will be able to find you.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

Exactly, car makers make cars. With out them cars don't get made. Humans make baby humans, with out them you get no humans. I think we both agree up to this point. The part we split at is in your introduction of a creator for all of life(to include the Universe and everything in it, lets not split hairs here). Ok. Then where did the creator come from? If you say the creator is evident because we see things created, then the creator is subject to the same standard. Who created the creator? Cars are made by humans right? Humans are made by the 'creator' right? Then just take that question one further. All that does is removes you from having to be specific. There is natural creation(i.e. sexual reproduction), and then artificial creation(i.e. car manufacturers), the 2 are not the same nor do they have the same origins. So fine humans are created BUT by other humans only. Im not saying there isn't a process of creation, im saying that the creation of a car is artificial where as the creation of a human is natural. The only way you can argue around this is to keep argueing semantics like you have. I should have been more specific with someone as nit picky as you, when I said life I meant all of it. The whole 14 billion years of it. Particles to matter, matter to stars, stars to planets, planets to earth, earth to living organisms, single cell to multi cell etc...This process has been continuos and has required no intervening. Or at least there is no evidence that anything intervened. And a lack of understanding of how these things came to be will lead people to just accept a creator because its a much simpler answer.

---

All great truths begin as blasphemiesI smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth.

If the space is infinite we'll be hitting a wall in our quest for knowledge as we don't know what infinite is, since we have never seen anything that is infinte. If space is finite, we'll have to ask what's outside of it? Nothingness? Cannot be as nothingness does not exist. But being 3d beings we cannot see anything that might be more-dimensional(outside our 3d universe) nor can we even begin to grasp the idea of 5 or 6 dimensional space and what it's supposed to be. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't need a god but life and the universe don't make a millionth of a percent sense. Their existence just don't make ANY sense, whatsoever. Everything is so pointless, yet everything is real and existing, it's frightening...
  —Agobot

---

quote:

---

This is a human perspective, to the Universe YOU don't make sense. There's a great book written by the Dalai Lama called, "The Universe in a single Atom", it may be a good read for you.
  —onifre

---

From our human perspective, I can see only one way that the universe would make sense. It would be if life was an illusion and we were all actors in a running movie. But there's also the possibilty that you might be right - life and the universe could just exist for absolutely no reason.