Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 10:14 PM
21 online now:
dwise1, JonF, Meddle, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tanypteryx (5 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,681 Year: 3,718/19,786 Month: 713/1,087 Week: 82/221 Day: 36/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
6789
10
11Next
Author Topic:   Can anything exist for an infinite time or outside of time?
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 136 of 158 (585051)
10-05-2010 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Huntard
10-05-2010 8:58 AM


Re: Can't believe it.
Does that make it clearer?

Totally.

I missed the bit about 1024 people.

D'oh!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Huntard, posted 10-05-2010 8:58 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 137 of 158 (585055)
10-05-2010 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Bikerman
07-30-2010 9:35 PM


Re: Multiverse Problems
Bikerman writes:

In reality the physics does allow for a version of a wormhole, or perhaps something completely alien.
Smolin's hypothesis is that Black Holes spawn entire universes in separate spacetimes. A bit unusual for a physicists, but not much stranger than many current hypotheses.

In reality?? What observed reality? Multiverses is no more observable reality than science fiction stories concocted up in minds of men/mankind.

When a relative few science elitists ascribe to unproven mathmatical conclusions contrary to logic, reason and real life observations the science becomes even less imperical than theistic ID conclusions based on the Biblical record, the latter having at least some real life optically visible supportive observable evidences cited in archived EvC threads.

Whether alleged multiverses stack up like pancakes or whether they are scattered there is no model other than abstract mystical math applied by science. In eather case, the logical model problem is multiple spacetimes, whether you stack them or scatter them.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Bikerman, posted 07-30-2010 9:35 PM Bikerman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by onifre, posted 10-05-2010 5:46 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1032 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 138 of 158 (585081)
10-05-2010 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Buzsaw
10-05-2010 9:39 AM


Re: Multiverse Problems
In reality?? What observed reality? Multiverses is no more observable reality than science fiction stories concocted up in minds of men/mankind.

Easy tiger. First, he's talking about wormholes, not a multiverse system.

Second of all, "in reality the physics allows for wormholes" simply means that the math supports the hypothesis.

When a relative few science elitists ascribe to unproven mathmatical conclusions

Can you show the rest of the class the actual mathematical errors in the multiverse hypothesis?

contrary to logic, reason and real life observations

The theory of relativity does just that, defies logic and reason and real life observations - yet is oh so true. Are you saying Einstein is wrong because logically you can't grasp relativity?

Whether alleged multiverses stack up like pancakes or whether they are scattered there is no model other than abstract mystical math applied by science.

Can you show the rest of the class the actual mathematical errors in the multiverse hypothesis?

In eather case, the logical model problem is multiple spacetimes, whether you stack them or scatter them.

The actual problem is that your words are meaningless and don't make any sense.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2010 9:39 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Buzsaw, posted 10-06-2010 9:01 AM onifre has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 139 of 158 (585158)
10-06-2010 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by onifre
10-05-2010 5:46 PM


Re: Multiverse Problems
omni writes:

Easy tiger. First, he's talking about wormholes, not a multiverse system.

Second of all, "in reality the physics allows for wormholes" simply means that the math supports the hypothesis.

When a relative few science elitists ascribe to unproven mathmatical conclusions

Can you show the rest of the class the actual mathematical errors in the multiverse hypothesis?

contrary to logic, reason and real life observations

The theory of relativity does just that, defies logic and reason and real life observations - yet is oh so true. Are you saying Einstein is wrong because logically you can't grasp relativity?

Whether alleged multiverses stack up like pancakes or whether they are scattered there is no model other than abstract mystical math applied by science.

Can you show the rest of the class the actual mathematical errors in the multiverse hypothesis?

In eather case, the logical model problem is multiple spacetimes, whether you stack them or scatter them.

The actual problem is that your words are meaningless and don't make any sense.

- Oni

In reality?? What observed reality? Multiverses is no more observable reality than science fiction stories concocted up in minds of men/mankind.

Easy tiger. First, he's talking about wormholes, not a multiverse system.

Second of all, "in reality the physics allows for wormholes" simply means that the math supports the hypothesis.

When a relative few science elitists ascribe to unproven mathmatical conclusions

Can you show the rest of the class the actual mathematical errors in the multiverse hypothesis?

contrary to logic, reason and real life observations

The theory of relativity does just that, defies logic and reason and real life observations - yet is oh so true. Are you saying Einstein is wrong because logically you can't grasp relativity?

Whether alleged multiverses stack up like pancakes or whether they are scattered there is no model other than abstract mystical math applied by science.

Can you show the rest of the class the actual mathematical errors in the multiverse hypothesis?

In eather case, the logical model problem is multiple spacetimes, whether you stack them or scatter them.

The actual problem is that your words are meaningless and don't make any sense.

Oni, I've highlighted the phrases in Bikerman's message implying mystery, undertainty and speculation. I've also highlighted phrases aluding to multiverses hypothesised as eminating from wormholes.

The optically visible evidences are more supportive to the Biblical record and entails less speculation than anything in Bikerman's message.

Yet Bikerman adds: "There is no need to invoke chance, divinities or any other gobbledygook." Who's hypothesis really invokes chance and gobbledygook?

Bikerman writes:

There are several hypotheses.
One which I find attractive is the Lee Smolin Evolutionary Universe hypothesis. Basically we know that black holes form in our universe. They are still pretty mysterious to science, though we do know some things. One thing that is possible is a form of 'break' in normal spacetime at the singularity. Sci-Fi often uses this in the form of wormhole, to open a new story. In reality the physics does allow for a version of a wormhole, or perhaps something completely alien.
Smolin's hypothesis is that Black Holes spawn entire universes in separate spacetimes. A bit unusual for a physicists, but not much stranger than many current hypotheses.
The consequences are astonishing. Since a universe would then 'breed' by containing black holes, we can imagine that the fundamental quantum constants, that appear so highly tuned, are in fact the signature of a successful universe - one which is stable enough to allow the formation of Black Holes (and, as a by product, also supports life - hence us).

Each universe would have slightly different fundamental constants. Most would quickly collapse or evaporate and a good number would never get past the quantum singularity stage. We know, however, that evolutionary algorithms home in very quickly on stable phenotypes - so the same is proposed for universes. There are potentially an infinite number of universes out there, but 'universal selection' means that only those stable enough for Black Holes to arise are actually 'fertile' and can pass their genes on (in the form of the physical constants) via their offspring (BHs).

- but physicists have soul too and can spot beauty when they see it - and the symmetry here makes this quite breathtakingly good-looking :-)

Amongst other nice outcomes/predictions, this hypothesis completely does away with the fine-tuning problem, since evolution naturally found the stable values of the constants in the same way as it finds creatures with the right physiological basics - chuck away the rejects. There is no need to invoke chance, divinities or any other gobbledygook.

PS - some people cannot see the power of evolution to home in on a design. I normally illustrate with the coin-toss analogy.
What are the chances of flipping a coin ten times and calling correctly (Heads or Tails) each time? Fairly low? About one in a thousand. (2^10= 1024)

So now I tell you that if you give me a few people and some coins, I will absolutely guarantee to have a person who has called ten straight flips correctly. What is more I'll do it in an hour or less. (no cheating btw - they will not simply toss and toss at incredible speed until they hit 10. They will ONLY make (or call) ten tosses and get every one right). How can I be so sure?

Simple - make it evolutionary. Reward the winner, 'kill' the looser. So you simply have a league contest. Divide into 2s and each pair flip a coin. One wins and they go through to the next round. After 10 rounds someone HAS flipped 10 winning turns inevitably.

Now of course in lots of ways this is not a true analogy with evolution - there is no inheritance of characteristics which is the main driver for evolution. BUT it does illustrate the 'power' of apparently random processes to hone in on pretty unlikely results, and do it inevitably.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by onifre, posted 10-05-2010 5:46 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by onifre, posted 10-06-2010 1:47 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1711 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 140 of 158 (585197)
10-06-2010 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Huntard
10-05-2010 8:58 AM


Re: Can't believe it.
This is a great example of why so many of you have a hard time getting your head around the logical problems with evolution. You can't delve deeply enough into a problem, ut you are sure you have the answers.

The coin trick doesn't work-I am sorry to inform you. The error in your thinking is the key phrase you mentioned, "mutually exclusive." There is a logical contradiction hidden within the confines of the rules of the game. The objective is to choose a coin toss ten times. To choose means you have more than one option to select for. But now you are throwing in the caveat that one of the two may only choose from a pool of one selection, and not two. After one selection is made, the other does not have a selection. In a selection involving only one choice, the odds of getting it correct are no longer 50 percent. Thus the game breaks down. It a fools gamble.

To put it another way, it as if you no longer are tossing a coin. It doesn't need to take place at all. You are simply taking a room full of people, and telling half of them to go home. Its meaningless. You can decide which half goes home based on a coin toss, or which half of the room they are on, or whoever you point to. Whoever is deciding who goes home is deciding the outcome of the game. There is no fifty-fifty choice for the individuals going home, there is a choice made by a third party, which can be neither correct or incorrect.

There is always someone not making a fifty fifty choice in your game. Someone else is deciding for one of them what they must be identified with. Some of the time they might be making a fifty fifty choice, and some of the time they are not. The times when they are not making a fifty fifty choice does not qualify them as having guessed 10 times correctly, now does it? Someone else decided for them. The moment that the element of choice for one of the individuals has been broken, the game also has been broken. Sorry, no winners.

Put in the simplest of terms, dividing people in half ten times does not equate to making ten correct guesses.

The people who have the inability to see this, are likely to also be the people who have the inability to see why things such as evolution, are a farce.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Huntard, posted 10-05-2010 8:58 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-07-2010 2:53 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1032 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 141 of 158 (585198)
10-06-2010 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Buzsaw
10-06-2010 9:01 AM


Re: Multiverse Problems
Oni, I've highlighted the phrases in Bikerman's message implying mystery, undertainty and speculation.

Then you're having trouble comprehending what he has written. The only time "mysterious" shows up is in reference to black holes.

I've also highlighted phrases aluding to multiverses hypothesised as eminating from wormholes.

And you understand that this is one physicist's hypothesis?

The optically visible evidences are more supportive to the Biblical record and entails less speculation than anything in Bikerman's message.

No it is not, it's just easier for YOU to understand because you have zero education in physics and cosmology. Sure, it's harder to understand complex theories and mathematics then stories, but what does that tell you? That hard work has been invested in these theories and thus yeild a higher degree of accuracy in their results. Stories are just stories, and don't do much to explain the finer points.

The Bible just says god did it, it doesn't explain how. All of this - from our universe to a multiverse - could be the guilded creation of your god, but HOW your god did it remains the focus of science. So sit back and enjoy, try to learn some of it, and quit acting like you have any clue as to what you're talking about in these subjects. You make an ass of yourself most of the time and that can't be a good thing for you.

And what do you mean with this new term you're throwing around - "optically visible evidence"? Do you just make things up as you go along? What isn't optically visible? Mathematical equations are optically visible.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Buzsaw, posted 10-06-2010 9:01 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
DPowell
Member (Idle past 2998 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-27-2010


Message 142 of 158 (585253)
10-06-2010 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Buzsaw
10-05-2010 1:16 AM


Re: Let's Do Lunch
I think it is important to make a distinction between who God is and what God does. What I mean by this is that, yes, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, but that does not mean that what God is doing is the same yesterday, today, and forever. What God is doing will progress with history, but it will always remain in accord with the unchanging character of who God is.

In a sense, Creation on the grand scale ended on Day 7 of Genesis 2, where it says that God rested from all the work of creating that He had be doing. To be sure, passages like Psalm 139 describe God's forming the individual person in the womb of his mother, and then of course the is the concept of being "born again" and becoming a new creation; in the eschaton, there will be the rebirth of the created order as the old heaven/earth pass away and a new heaven/earth are made. All of this to say that God is still in the business of creating, but that looks differently in the passage of time.

God's work through the history can roughly be outlined as something like this:

Creation -> (Fall of Man) -> Promises of Restoration -> Redemption -> Judgment (Eternal Life or Eternal Condemnation)

On the issue of the location of God within space and time, I would push John 1 as arguing for the existence of the triune God alone in eternity past. On a merely philosophical basis, I think it could be argued as well that if God is creating all that exists in Genesis 1, what/Who existed and what was going on prior to this creative act?

I do appreciate the civility with which you write. This is a welcome departure from the bulk of my discussions on here in the past.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2010 1:16 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 187 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 143 of 158 (585254)
10-06-2010 10:39 PM


I hate to intrude...
I hate to intrude, but this thread is in the Science Forum.

I don't see a whole lot of science in the above posts.

Perhaps it would help, and more resemble science, if posters provided empirical evidence for their posts?

(See tagline.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
  
DPowell
Member (Idle past 2998 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-27-2010


Message 144 of 158 (585258)
10-06-2010 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Hyroglyphx
05-06-2010 5:15 PM


Re: First Cause
I know this is old, old stuff, but I suppose I'm coming out of a retirement of sorts.

You may wanna re-count the years on Shigechiyo Izumi. 120 years. Go down a bit in the article you linked and see that the oldest undisputed male in history was 115 years old.

And I am not saying a woman is not a human or that she does not count as a person. I am saying what was written spoke of "men," which could be taken in the Old Testament either as "mankind" (humans) or, specifically, as "men" (males). Let's just say it includes all of mankind--men and women. There is one woman who has lived past 120 years--supposedly, at least. Search through the way the Bible tends to deal with numbers, dates, and years, and I think it is a fair case to say that it is not as concerned with laser-beam precision all the time as we are. A lot of numbers seem rounded off, etc., even when they are listed with more precision in other locations (e.g. when comparing parallel accounts in Samuel/Kings and Chronicles).

I don't feel any need to debate the nature of cosmology any more than simply to say that one's cosmology is tied very closely to one's worldview. One deals with some definites and absolutes, and then come the necessary processes of integration, interpretation, and interpolation.

To the final issue of the incomprehensibility of a transcendent God, you are exactly right. In my finite nature, I am absolutely incapable of discerning the infinite. The only way to discern such a God would be for Him to reveal Himself to finite man--in Christianity, we call that the Bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-06-2010 5:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
DPowell
Member (Idle past 2998 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-27-2010


Message 145 of 158 (585261)
10-06-2010 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by DarkMatter
05-07-2010 9:28 AM


Re: First Cause
My understanding is that there is indeed loss of matter/energy in nuclear fission. Additionally, I believe the consensus is that the distinction we make between matter and energy is a little blurrier than we have made it here.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by DarkMatter, posted 05-07-2010 9:28 AM DarkMatter has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by bluescat48, posted 10-06-2010 11:55 PM DPowell has responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2271 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 146 of 158 (585263)
10-06-2010 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by DPowell
10-06-2010 11:32 PM


Re: First Cause
My understanding is that there is indeed loss of matter/energy in nuclear fission. Additionally, I believe the consensus is that the distinction we make between matter and energy is a little blurrier than we have made it here.

There is no loss of matter/energy. A small amount of mass is converted into energy, but the overall total of mass/energy is the same as per E = MC2.

That is for each gram that is converted the amount of energy formed is ~9 x 107 kgm2/sec2, that is ~9 x 107 Joules.

Edited by bluescat48, : missing superscript


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by DPowell, posted 10-06-2010 11:32 PM DPowell has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by DPowell, posted 10-07-2010 12:16 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
DPowell
Member (Idle past 2998 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-27-2010


Message 147 of 158 (585265)
10-07-2010 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by bluescat48
10-06-2010 11:55 PM


Re: First Cause
Fair enough. I can use some correction, hehe.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by bluescat48, posted 10-06-2010 11:55 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16087
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 148 of 158 (585275)
10-07-2010 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Bolder-dash
10-06-2010 1:32 PM


Re: Can't believe it.
You seem to have finally grasped what Bikerman was talking about. Well done.

Or perhaps I should rather offer my congratulations to the people who managed to explain the bleedin' obvious to you.

Your further whining about evolutionists seems to be ritualistic rather than relevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Bolder-dash, posted 10-06-2010 1:32 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2818
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 149 of 158 (585343)
10-07-2010 3:37 PM


time
The beginning of time was the beginning of the universe which was the big bang. That was when space, time and matter came into being.

No prior time, no concept of infinity, nothing. Trying to grasp a infinite amount of nothing means time. No, it is impossible for us to grasp anything prior to T=0. The was nothing, and now there is everything. Words like preexisted, existed, infinite, do not apply since the beginning is where all these concepts take meaning.


  
Flatland
Junior Member (Idle past 2526 days)
Posts: 10
Joined: 01-30-2010


Message 150 of 158 (588397)
10-25-2010 3:29 AM


This question reminds me of Zeno's Paradox
    
Prev1
...
6789
10
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019