|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The denial is done via plausable sounding jargon. Here, the notion of a 4 dimensional realm is supposed to justify a rejection of an infinite realm. The yes becomes no, via denting the yes to such an extent that it cannot apply anymore. Here, we are told there is no denial of a finite universe; rather that the finite universe is within an infinite realm - thus the finite is really infinite. Of course, there is no proof of the novel premise of other realms, however it leaves the other side quagmired to disprove what is not proved. IOW, go disprove a non provable other dimension. Pigs fly - but in different dimensions. Go disprove it. And if you cannot - it proves that pigs fly. This also proves there are other dimensions, but not in this finite realm, only in the non-provable other realm. And no, the non-provable infinite realm is not contained in this finite realm, stupid! No stupid, the other dimension is not provable and if it were it would still be within a further invisable ghostly dimension. Polterguist. QED. But knock, knock! All dimensions are post-universe. Including the premise of nothingness. There are no pre-, pra-, or multi-dimensions/universes; nor pre-space, nor pre-nothingness. And in this view - you have lost. Stupid. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Yours is a common under-impression what 'change' really means, whereby you see this in a very basic, superficial level, like blue to green, and H+O = water. To promote your deeper understanding, I suggested you consider what it means when something is 'unchangeable' - period, meaning unable to be effected by 'anything' - therein is the only criteria requirement, which is indispensible for any claims of infinite. This is the unique criteria which renders an immunity from such finite traits like aging, corrupting, decomposing, finishing, splitting, losing power or anything possessed, lessening, increasing, dividing, multiplying, death, becoming something else, etc. These cannot occur with a changeless factor. This is in fact pure logic: to be uneffected by something - the factor of non-changeability is obvious and not negotiable. Nor is this allignable or equatable with changes of state as a deflective and back door mode of infinite, which says only that if one thing can change something, that changed or changing factor is also able to be effected by another, more transcendent factor. Other similar manouvers such as part of the finite is infinite are also not impacting reasons. It appears science is becoming akin to a theology - some beliefs are non-violable, as with a heresy. At the expense of truthful and correct science itself. Basically, you are agreeing the universe is finite [which is not debatable anymore] - but you have a problem what constitutes that factor. And its almost like a psychological problem more than a science based error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Ok, perhaps I cannot define what is infinite, equally as anyone else cannot, as this is indeed indefinable and incomprable with anything in this finite universe. The definition should be limited to the finite, and I see you may have a valid point here. While none can say anything about infinite attributes, whether this can abide by change and still maintain its infinite value - which is in itself a reference to unlimited power and ultimate sustainance, including that nothing can 'effect' infinite [which includes change, though I would say this change would be a voluntary act], it can be put thusly: Anything subject to change must be finite. That does not say anything about infinite, and may not apply with infinite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Cool. However, many speak of multi universes via other dimensions, which is because they have not formed an opinion the universe is finite, or that they have a different notion of finite by seeing it selectively or in limitations - like an artificial pregnancy of sorts.
Before the discovery of radiation and radio waves, such dimensions would be invisable - but these were at all times post-universe products. Thus any new dimensions discovered will have the same value. There is no credibility in proposing pre- or outer universe premises; everything is within the same universe - even the word 'same' is a violation, and better 'this' universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Correct. But nor does the term 'nothingness' have any meaning, other than an admission for the motion of a finite universe. Both nothing and no-things are universal concepts - as is the half empty part of a half full cup.
The empty bag is not empty - it contains a lot of emptiness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
NOTHING = NO THINGS.
PERIOD. Here's why I see genesis not as a theology [the NT & Quran are theologies, namely based on belief], while Genesis is science - which does not mean it has to subscribe to all the science of the day, any period - instead, it is 'A' science - one with a different scientific premise. Buddhism is not a theology but a philosophy, while I cannot define Hinduism. Now we do not have a scientific premise of nothingness or a pre-uni scenario - so Genesis does not go against science in this instant, but posits a different view, while no view is provable about the universe origins; even BBT is only a theory. But as theories, where logic and no contradictions with known science counts, then Genesis wins the day on what prevailed pre-uni, as well as what defines nothingness. Genesis' opening verse says: 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD/CREATOR' Not provable you say? I already preambled that fact, and instead will rely on logic relating to this non-provable premise, logic being a form of science in itself, or its absolute forerunner requirement. The Q here is, why is a Creator positation logical in this opening statement in Genesis? First thing is to forget the premise of theology and think science, or else, at least logic, and that which does not contradict known science - I believe this is a reasonable scientific methodology. Firstly, we have no scientific knowledge or proven position of a pre-uni scenario. Secondly, the premise of a beginning point [BB] does not even begin to explain the universe, raising questions such as how can a complexity result from a random or of its own or from chaos or what triggered the activation of the first point particle? A fristrating vaccuum confronts us here. Now one can say, yes but nor does a verse in Genesis relieve this vaccuum. Let's examine that again. Genesis is saying before the universe there was not NOTHING, but a Creator - and that there was nothing else [it is a pre-uni statement, appearing before the word CREATED occurs]. This statement is not as naive as one may think - for a start it introduces that the universe had a beginning, namely it is the first positation of a finite universe, and correctly contexted in the formation of the universe, namely the heavens [galaxies] and the earth. That is 100% science today. Then the premise that there was no nothingness but only a creator, is also 100% science: all things are post-uni in a finite universe - thus no things contained in this universe could exist pre-uni, including para- and multi-V universes. Real science and logic. Then that enigmatic question, how does this point more logically to a Creator creating the universe, as opposed to everything just acculumatively progressing on its own. My answer: EXCUSE ME! Since when is a creator creating a complex realm, LESS LIKELY than that realm occuring by itself - we need a verb [action] and an actioner [subject] - whatever happened to logic and science suddenly?!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Entropy is an effect, not a cause. The effect would not occur without critical factors applying: e.g. reciprocity and intergration factors: these are anticipatory and rely on pre-determined criticality factors.
The sun's energy is not what makes life possible. Photosenthesis, for example, requires the other product it impacts to be receptive to it: that is why the sun cannot create life upon iron ore or other planets. You are confusing a creative factor with the created process; the former must subsist before the latter can: holding a white paper high in the air does not make the car manual the end point of a car.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: And what happens when there is no '0'? Nothing is not zero, but no-things; and all things are uni contained - including no-things. This enigmatic premise is well catered to in the notion all things began with a duality factor; in fact this says there is no 'ONE' in the universe. Track down all things and you find it is a combination of at least a duality - namely a positive and negative force, and no where can any one of those forces subsist in the universe independently or as ONE. This is the reason particles either attract or repel each other, and levels seek their uniform balance - these are effects of fundamental designs within the deepest realms of the universe. One has to agree with the position prior to the universe [namely, all things], there was ONE - as opposed no things/nothingness. Nothingness is a subjective posiion, meaning it is limited to what one can fathom, discern, calculate, measure, see or contain in their vocab. And this means only that there is ONE factor when no things existed - meaning there is never nothing - else no things could be possible. Even the notion of no-things or nothingness - requires ONE to say that is so!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Yes, science comes from genesis; science is an explanation how an existing and operating process works - nothing more. Its like a faculty of maths, history and geography. When genesis declares there was a beginning, humanity had to consider it - then fathom it - then endeavour to explain and rationalise it. But if Genesis said there was no beginning and everything was always there, it would be the end of science, or science could not be initiated: what for?
quote: I just did.
quote: That the uni had a beginning; that next came entropy [formless to form]; then came critical seperations of the elements [light from darkness; water from land; etc]; then came life giving luminosity; then came life forms - in a chronological, evolutionary order. Am I still talking science - and is there any science outside these premises?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Infinite = everlasting = unchanging. A state of change = the thing was and is finite. A state of no change = not finite. All finite things are subject to change. Something which changes means it was not the same thing 10 seconds ago. Something which does not change means it was always that same thing. There is no other factor which positively and conclusively makes something finite than change. Name anything which is finite and not subject to change?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: That's a neat trick. I saw some science books saying the universe was finite, then I looked up an ancient document which co-incidently says the universe had a beginning. But co-incidently, no such document exists elsewhere. It means: I cannot be right even if...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
You bring up talking snakes when it will be off topic to respond. But you use this as a means of negating that whiich you cannot negate. I call it 'thinking clearly inside the box'. You are also disregarding some basic considerations: some words were not yet in humanity's vocabs 3000 years ago: e.g. 'finite, entropy, big bang, etc, etc. One cannot be logical in science but illogical in history lessons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: So what's your point? Why not play a game: go via a time machine 3000 years back to the future, and make a statement concerning the beginning of light or whether the universe is finite or not - before this is predicted. How would you word it to an audience in the town square, noting that a few may actually understand the spoken word - therein is the test, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Absolutely not - the relevent, opening entry in genesis is contexted in a verse and paragraph which discusses only the universe origins, with no possibility of interpretations being required. The entire follow-up verses also deal precisely and solely with the subsequent factors immediately upon the universe occuring. I tend an open challenge to you: instead of deflecting away - what other possibility can Genesis be talking about? I mean, there has to be other potential and different interpretations possible before you accuse me of wrong or exeggerated interpretations - is Genesis's first chapter talking about agriculture, wood carving, rock'n'roll - what other thing aside from the universe's origin? You either have a comprehension issue, or else guilty of the charges you lay elsewhere. I note also your own self contradictions: first you negate genesis - then you say it is a retrospective interpretation - which also admits, by default and denial, an over-turning of the first charge. There is only one issue to confront, and that is whether today's science is catching up with a first recording of a finite universe. The answer is positively yes, but only recently, half heartedly and reluctantly dragging its foot there. Now I can produce a host of ancient writings which affirm the view held of a limited and finite universe - well before the term 'finite' was coined. In any case you have no grounds to question a document which says something 3000 years ago, and attack me instead of addressing what is said in that document.
quote: There is no interpretation - or any other possible meaning to a verse which says the galaxes and this planet had a beginning - then goes on to list what came next, and next, and next - all being limited to universe origins, and mentioning no other items - even saying this prior to the emergence of any life forms: IOW - the writings is exclusively vested in the universe origins [the texts!]. You can learn from genesis - and state your preamble which universe you are talking about - a finite or infinite one. Otherwise, you can say whatever you wish and none can question you - and that os what is happening all over the place. Genesis is bold and up-front here - while you have not responded to this primal question after repeated requests.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: That is your problem: you equate head bashing deities battling for supremecy with genesis' monotheistic creator. FYI, the term religion and bible has no reference of equalisation with genesis, other than an imposed common usage. Nor has anything been negated in genesis by you or anyone else. They're just shouting words such as myth, religion, etc - but putting nothing on the table.
quote: So you do admit genesis is talking about a universe which had a beginning? What took you so long to decide!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024