Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 168 of 273 (472391)
06-22-2008 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Force
06-21-2008 11:03 PM


Re: Finite universe (again)
LOL - that's a brilliant enlightenment.
Prove your case, then LOL.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Force, posted 06-21-2008 11:03 PM Force has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Force, posted 06-22-2008 10:54 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 169 of 273 (472400)
06-22-2008 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Coyote
06-22-2008 1:29 AM


Re: It's blatant, all right...
Ok, the 6000 is off topic, but not whether we inhabit a finite or infinite universe!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Coyote, posted 06-22-2008 1:29 AM Coyote has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 174 of 273 (472504)
06-22-2008 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Straggler
06-22-2008 9:56 AM


Re: Finite universe (again)
quote:
The reason we know anything about the physical nature of the universe is by means of scientific investigation.
Correct. Whatever we call 'knowing', must be evidenced scientifically, historically and logically, as opposed by belief premises.
quote:
Can frankly mean almost whatever you want them to mean. How on Earth do you conclude from these verses that infinite = unchanging?
How about, by examining and debating it scientifically? This is the mode I would like to see this premise examined - not by expelling it as a religious belief. And as such, it cannot be examined better than in a science thread. This requires a scientific determination what constitutes infinity - because we cannot debate a subject without having a criteria what determines it. IMHO, you will find the criteria of 'CHANGE' a singularly legitimate one - via science, maths and logic - in fact it is not replaceable with any other criteria whatsoever.
I say, whatever criteria is put forward, will be wanting or incorrect - without the factor of change. Try it sometime before claiming to understand the term.
quote:
Even if, for arguments sake, we accept that God is infinite (what would that actually mean?) and has declared himself to be unchanging it does not necessarily follow that anything infinite must therefore be unchanging as you are asserting.
Never mind what God said, examine the term infinite where the factor of change is not encumbent. Is that not a scientific methodology? I explained that the changee is less transcendent than the changer - but this had no bearing on you. I explained that something which changes was not infinite 10 seconds back. I explained that a thread a 100 light years long cannot contain an infinite thread. These are not semantical provisions. Infnity cannot apply to anything subject to change, and I find this a vindicating premise from all angles, including a scientific one. I am certain the maths will also vindicate it, while this is above my means.
However, if this view is not accepted as the basis for a examination scientifically - then I will drop out from this path of approach - only to please the wanting unconfronting and escapists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Straggler, posted 06-22-2008 9:56 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Straggler, posted 06-23-2008 3:00 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 175 of 273 (472516)
06-22-2008 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Force
06-22-2008 10:54 AM


Re: Finite universe (again)
quote:
In the past you have gone "off topic" to prove your silly little points. Why be the good Samaritan now? Or is this one of those times when you are aware your belief is clouding your judgment. How about you starting a thread to prove the earth is 6000 years old.
The 6000 was in response to a post. The finite factor is of course alligned with any debate of the BB.
quote:
Sci-Tech Encyclopedia:
Infinity
The terms infinity and infinite have a variety of related meanings in mathematics. The adjective finite means “having an end,” so infinity may be used to refer to something having no end.
'End' = a change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Force, posted 06-22-2008 10:54 AM Force has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Force, posted 07-04-2008 1:12 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 177 of 273 (472542)
06-23-2008 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Straggler
06-23-2008 3:00 AM


Re: Finite universe (again)
quote:
Where, other than in your head, does infinite = unchanging?
If you have some incredible new angle on infinity that mathematicians, scientists, philosophers and everybody else has missed up until now you are going to have to do more than simply assert this as a fact.
I gave a definition of what constitutes infinity: why don't you do the same?
My definition is not a new angle or from my head, nor unscientific or a-mathematical, but one which is written in the same source which introduces creationism, and which I happen to agree with upon its deliberation. Rather than make remarks inferring it is ridiculous, why not address how it is not correct scientifically, or what other definition applies? I gave at least one mathematical definition from a respected dictionary.
Are you saying, an infinite can contain changes effected by a finite source, and still remain infinite? - I see no other conclusion from your response, nor do I understand what your objection refers to, or what aspect you are correcting and what is the correct replacement of it.
At least you must agree on one factor: deeming any part of the universe as being always existing [infinite], is not a definition of an infinite universe, thus everlasting space cannot apply as being infinite, while being contained in a finite structure: because an infinite quantity of space just does not fit into a young, 15 Billion year measure of space. Elementary, 101 science, maths and logic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Straggler, posted 06-23-2008 3:00 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Straggler, posted 06-23-2008 9:12 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 178 of 273 (472543)
06-23-2008 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Straggler
06-23-2008 3:00 AM


Re: Finite universe (again)
DOUBLE POST.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Straggler, posted 06-23-2008 3:00 AM Straggler has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 180 of 273 (472564)
06-23-2008 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Straggler
06-23-2008 9:12 AM


Re: Finite universe (again)
quote:
I have no real objection to your definition.
Infinity
The terms infinity and infinite have a variety of related meanings in mathematics. The adjective finite means “having an end,” so infinity may be used to refer to something having no end.
The maths version is limited to the theoretical and academic only, and can only apply with other maths problems - not outside the maths.
quote:
All ends may be changes but not all changes are necessarily ends. Your logic is flawed.
So you concede an end is a change, but not that a change is an end? Moderately confused here: an end is a change, but only because an alteration represents the change from the transcendent changER to the lesser changEE - which means that a change is also an alteration. IOW, if something is changed, it also says whatever changed it is a greater power [so to speak] over it.
It is different from a 'change of state', which I suspect you are confusing it with. The premise of 'no end' with the change takes on a different outcome than a change of state, because we are not really limiting this premise to a change to another state, but to which is greater, and that the greater cannot be limited to a containment in the lesser.
quote:
Again how do you justify infinite = unchanging?
Consider that a changing action represents a power or force, and whatever it is able to change, represents a less transcendent force. When this same analogy is applied where it is supposed to, namely with space-time measures, then whatever factor is able to change that space-time, must also be able to outlast that space-time; otherwise, the change will not be evidential. A 10 mile long train cannot be contained in a 5 mile long tunnel - nor can an infinite amount of time be contained in a finite [15B years] amount of time.
An infinite can contain a finite, but not the other way around; here, any changes can only be limited to the finite, not the infinite - because of the transcendent factor.
Another way to consider this issue, [which deliberation only indicates this is one of the hediest subjects, and not fully comprehended by anyone - or any person which is finite], is to imagine your great grand-parent being infinite or everlasting. This would mean not that he is able to enjoy a very long life span, because this is only a relative term - his lifespan is not long relative to the big picture. For your great grand parent to be infinite, there must be no changes whatsoever; IOW, there must be no force in the universe which can age him or effect him - because no force in the universe is infinite. Infinite is different from very old or long surviving, which is a relative factor, while infinite is an absolute factor - transcendent of all which is finite. It is also varied from a cyclical change of states.
Another consideration is, why is everything in the universe finite? The latter answers only to one factor: changes. Its proof is that nothing in the universe [or our imagination] withstands change. I found it significant that this is the only condition nominated in the source which declares the universe as finite, and then I considered this deeply and performed research in the definitions and manifest examples of finite everywhere we look. If I am wrong, I have not seen any evidence which says I am wrong, nor of any alternative examples which fit this description better.
My conclusion of this subject: if an infinite factor is proposed for the universe or anything else [e.g. space] - then that cannot display any changes - the only trait making it transcendent to all things which are finite.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Straggler, posted 06-23-2008 9:12 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Straggler, posted 06-23-2008 10:47 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 183 of 273 (472654)
06-23-2008 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Agobot
06-23-2008 4:27 PM


This requires more than a mocking response. The factor of change must be understood for what it represents in its essence. One can change dough into bread - which is a change of state, whereby both survive in some form. It does not make you a rocket scientist for pointing this out - so obviously, there is a deeper treshold operative with the real essential change I am referring to.
The change which constitutes infinity is in its core paradigm levels, alligned with the act of change, rather than the result or level of the change. Think of change as in a power; the causation factor rather than the effects factor. If john doe is changed by vladimir - than there is no more john doe, while john doe cannot perform the same feat with vladimir; meaning this is not about a change of state.
The moon and the sun incur changes, in temperatures and in their life spans - these are not and never be infinite - because they are interacting with other changing products. Now consider that the moon and the sun cannot be effected by temperatures or death: this is infinite - because a finite cannot change the infinite.
This is the true meaning of "I DO NOT CHANGE" - it is a scientific, mathematical and consciousness technical term, and must be understood that way; it is a deceptively simple phrase, alligned and contexted with where did the creator come from and what is the origins of creation. It is contextually talking about infinity. Imagine if you asked your teacher who created the universe and who created the creator - and the answer was, "THE CREATOR IS NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE". Here, there is only one meaning: NOTHING WHATSOEVER CAN EFFECT THE CREATOR. That is the kind of change this refers to. It is 100% logic and deep science: infinity can only be that which cannot be effected by anything finite - else it cannot ever be infinite - it would have been effected 10 seconds ago?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Agobot, posted 06-23-2008 4:27 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Agobot, posted 06-24-2008 4:01 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 185 by Straggler, posted 06-24-2008 6:45 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 186 of 273 (472693)
06-24-2008 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Straggler
06-24-2008 6:45 AM


Re: Change
I hope this is still on topic, at least it is BB related. The problem I see with the responses are that the issue is confused and reduced to the elementary and unrelated.
A change can be seen as a state of change, as in its common usage - as in liquid to gas, etc. But there is surely another level of change which is not grasped here, namely the fundamental factor of change as in its essence and totality. Here, the change of a mouse into a rabbit may be seen as a change to another state - but think of changing mouse per se into rabbits per se - so mouse per se does not exist anymore: thus we can say the mouse is not infinite, and the rabbit can be infinite subject to not being changeable [effected] by anything else whatsoever. This is a different kind of change from a state of change - here, the term change is pushed to its ultimate and technical treshold, because this is what a change technically means, but not so meant in every day usage.
Now also think of a withstanding of change. What if the mouse cannot be turned into a rabbit? - what if nothing in the universe can change [effect] that mouse in any way whatsoever - not even by a zillion supernova atomic blasts, or by time unlimited? This is another form of non-changeability. Also note, such does not exist in this finite universe.
I am referring to change and non-change other than a change of states. In actual terms, a change represents any and all of an effectation; a loss; a replacement; a destruction; a displacement; a diminishing; a weakness; an overpowering; a transcendence; a choiceless causation; etc. This is not your ordinary change of state from blue to green, or from hot to cold, or from mouse to rabbit.
The point is, if something is subject to being changed, it eventually cannot be said to be ever-lasting or infinite; whereas its contrasting condition is that if something cannot be changed - it can be everlasting and infinite. And further, the change factor is indispensible and singularly encumbent in the premise of infinity. By subsequence, we MUST conclude that only the change factor rules here: no infinity with change; infinity only where no change is possible.
There is also no mistake or typo in the change declared in the OT. The term infinity, or even this concept, was not yet coined 1000's of years ago, thus the term change is correctly employed - but it has a different application when read today. However, I don't wish to go to theology here to impress the uninitiated. The point is to examine the issue from a science pov, and this is vindicated when examined correctly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Straggler, posted 06-24-2008 6:45 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by onifre, posted 06-24-2008 10:23 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 192 by Straggler, posted 06-24-2008 1:28 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 193 of 273 (472733)
06-24-2008 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by onifre
06-24-2008 10:23 AM


Re: Change
quote:
IAJ,
Are you saying that if the Universe changes then it is no longer an infinte Universe because it chahged from its original state? IOW, whatever it was,(the Universe), could have been infinte but, since it changed('IT' being the Universe in its original state), by definition is no longer infinte?
If this is your position?
No, not quite and not at all, eventually. I guess I can't express this adequately as not even any of you intels can understand me. Your example is still a change of state, in layers. My change is about being effected in any manner, and no-change is about not being effected in any manner. Full on total and period. One reason this becomes difficult to analogise is there is no such example in the universe - which in a sense affirms the premise.
quote:
I believe the concept however, is that the Universe is finite but, space is infinite...As I understand it.
That's impossible, aside being totally unscientific. An infinite cannot be contained in a finite. Is this still a science thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by onifre, posted 06-24-2008 10:23 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by onifre, posted 06-24-2008 5:27 PM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 194 of 273 (472738)
06-24-2008 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by onifre
06-24-2008 10:11 AM


Re: Finite
quote:
Purposeful? or adaptive? Purposeful is theological, don't try to sneak that one by...
No such thing as theology when it comes to universe origins. There is only science and genesis. And there is no alternative to creationism - from a scientific and mathematical pov. The dif between purposeful and adaptive is the latter does not go as far as the former, and that science becomes very desperate when reduced to the semantical. There is purpose with pineapples - and adaptation is a belated follow-on process. This usually becomes a cyclical arguement - meaning you cannot assume your right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by onifre, posted 06-24-2008 10:11 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by onifre, posted 06-24-2008 5:32 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 195 of 273 (472739)
06-24-2008 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Straggler
06-24-2008 1:28 PM


Re: Change
quote:
You have no basis for your assertion. Not even a biblical one. Your assertion that infinite = unchanging is flawed, unjustified and uniquely your own.
The reverse is the case. You have no basis for disproving anything subject to change can be infinite. There is nothing in the universe which is infinite nor which can withstand change.
Sure, the concept comes from genesis - which does not mean its unscientific - else I would not propose it. An infinite universe also comes from the same source, so does the 24-hour day, the oldest and most accurate calendar in existence, as well as the first alphabetical books. 100% scientific stuff - well before the word was invented.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Straggler, posted 06-24-2008 1:28 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Straggler, posted 06-24-2008 4:40 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 199 of 273 (472829)
06-24-2008 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Straggler
06-24-2008 4:40 PM


Re: Change
quote:
By the same standards of logic that you apply we could say that which is infinite is ever changing
I don't see how an ever-changing state can be accounted as infinite: this would mean you see the universe, which is in an ever-changing state - as infinite! Do you? In contrast, the factor of change is the only common denominator in an infinite realm: name another factor? - there is none.
There can be no progress or sanity if we keep harkening back to what is agreed and not in dispute, and contradicting this in the process of being seen as faulty: the universe is finite. In desperation, some harken to space and nothingness as being infinite and contained in a finite realm. Not possible - not science nor maths.
quote:
There is no basis for any sort of relationship between the infinite and the unchanging.
You have repeatedly failed to demonstrate any foundation for the assertion that infinite = unchanging. Your assertion remains baseless, unjustified and logically flawed.
I showed there is a common denominator, a connection in reality, and thus a foundation to the premise of change and finite, to the extent there is no question or alternative of it: this here universe. Show me something which never changes - and I'll show you infinite. So why do you keep repeating I have failed to demonstrate my case - you should be saying there is no way to disprove my premise - and you should either concede or say my premise is difficult to dislodge: that admission would make the debate 'scientifically' honest?
quote:
Regardless of the source your assertion that the quotes below somehow equate to infinity = unchanging are incredible.
Disagree. A source accreditisation is appropriate, nor has that assertion been dented any here. Genesis said the uni is finite - recent science says so also. Period. The rest is chorusing on without commas - and millions of commas do not end in its disproof.
quote:
Only with an interpretation borne of a predetermined coclusion which itself is based on extreme philosophical bias can anyone turn these obviously ambiguous statements into the baseless assertion that infinite = unchanging.
Aside from an alledged predetermined conclusion baseless charge, there is the fact the universe has been determined to be finite - only in the last century, in fact less that 80 years ago: so your saying this is your proof the predetermination applies to the last 80 years as a retrospective, belated and predertermined conclusion - but by whom genesis or science!? Then maybe your saying it is also baseless because - the science allignment of it is a good guessmatic by genesis!? Is the intro of the 24-hour day also in that baseless category? FYI, whether you deem it baseless or not, you have no legitimate choice but to bow to this fact unconditionally: Genesis was vindicated - by state of art recent science acknowledgement. Wish I was the scientist who made that guessmatic!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Straggler, posted 06-24-2008 4:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Straggler, posted 06-25-2008 9:11 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 200 of 273 (472830)
06-24-2008 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by onifre
06-24-2008 5:32 PM


Re: Finite
quote:
I said the opposite of that. Multiverses would exist how?
My position is MV, & para-uni's cannot subsist in a finite realm - because earth, matter and all the stuff which is this uni contained is finite, and thus cannot exist pre- or outside the universe. Yes/no?
quote:
There is no purpose to a pineapple, unless again you are taking this to a theological level as well. A pineapple is the result of...not a purpose for...
A pineapple has critical usage and would be purposeless [or self adaptive] only if there was no distinct and manifest purpose for it - or that there was multi uses for it - but you make out like it superfluous from the fact it has vitamins suited to life forms, receptive to consumption [as opposed 'iron ore'] and not to rocks and mountains: here you equate pineapple same as iron ore, gravity and winds. In fact, great scientists agree the universe is so purposeful manifest, the odds of random become un-scientific. I say, at least the factor of purpose cannot be dislodged from the radar - and subsequently the paranoia is vested elsewhere.
quote:
I assume nothing, im right period.
You assume a pineapple has no purpose. In fact, the only instance where 'adaptation' cannot apply is when there is a definitive and exacting usage factor applying. A car is not the result of adaptation but purposeful design: guess why!
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by onifre, posted 06-24-2008 5:32 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by onifre, posted 06-25-2008 8:29 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 203 of 273 (472921)
06-25-2008 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Straggler
06-25-2008 9:11 AM


Re: Change
quote:
Show me something which always changes and I will show you something infinite.
Show me something that never changes and I will show you something infinitesimal.
Thus the common denominator you mention also proves the opposite of your assertion.
I would like to suggest we move on from this sub-topic, because it refers to what constitutes infinity, rather than that the universe is infinite or not. However, I can now see why there is utter chaos in the issue - the majority does not WANT to acknowledge a finite universe, and there is a deviant direction which pulls away from this notion - this is done via academic and semantical manouverings. It is a form of denial.
The fundamental reason appears the phobia a finite universe is seen to subscribe to creationism, because it becomes increasingly difficult to sustain any other scenario. Ultimately, it is a reductionism of science and logic, rather than accept what is scientific and logical. Any lame duck will see the clearity that change contradicts infinity, and also this is the only factor able to prove the case - making the arguements against it only deviant manuverings. Thus this is blatant denial. Creationism cannot be deniad by rejecting logic and replacing it with slight of hand academics, which is escapism.
Yet there is no escaping the enigma, because it will catch up with you every time around every corner. Rather than trying to impress the unimpressable denial, I suggest everyone respond to the first question on the examination paper:
Q1. THE UNIVERSE IS FINITE: YES/NO?
# The yes/no does not allow any qualifications.
My answer: "YES'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Straggler, posted 06-25-2008 9:11 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Straggler, posted 06-26-2008 8:23 AM IamJoseph has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024