Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
 Current session began: Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 9:16 PM
36 online now:
DrJones*, edge, JonF, Tanypteryx (4 members, 32 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Post Volume:
 Total: 848,599 Year: 3,636/19,786 Month: 631/1,087 Week: 221/212 Day: 36/27 Hour: 0/0

 Rew Prev 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 19 Next
Author Topic:   Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

 Message 196 of 273 (472769) 06-24-2008 4:40 PM Reply to: Message 195 by IamJoseph06-24-2008 3:04 PM

Re: Change
 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.

We could apply your same arguments to make the complete opposite case to the one you are trying to make!!
By the same standards of logic that you apply we could say that which is infinite is ever changing and that which is infinitesimal is perfectly static and unchanging.
None of these things are observed in the universe. They are all equally flawed arguments

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.

 Sure, the concept comes from genesis - which does not mean its unscientific

If you want to discuss the scientfic validity or otherwise of Genesis I suggest you start a new thread. My argument against your baseles assertion in this thread has nothing to do with the validity of the source whatsoever.

Regardless of the source your assertion that the quotes below somehow equate to infinity = unchanging are incredible.

 "IN THE BEGINNING THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH WAS CREATED" "I AM THE LORD - I HAVE NOT CHANGED"

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.

 This message is a reply to: Message 195 by IamJoseph, posted 06-24-2008 3:04 PM IamJoseph has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 199 by IamJoseph, posted 06-24-2008 11:42 PM Straggler has responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 1029 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008

 Message 197 of 273 (472784) 06-24-2008 5:27 PM Reply to: Message 193 by IamJoseph06-24-2008 2:48 PM

Re: Change
 An infinite cannot be contained in a finite.

I said the opposite of that. Multiverses would exist how?

All great truths begin as blasphemies

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

 This message is a reply to: Message 193 by IamJoseph, posted 06-24-2008 2:48 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 1029 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008

 Message 198 of 273 (472787) 06-24-2008 5:32 PM Reply to: Message 194 by IamJoseph06-24-2008 2:55 PM

Re: Finite
 and that science becomes very desperate when reduced to the semantical.

Funny, I believe my arguement with you in the past has been that you are the one who is being semantical. There is no semantical arguement here, purpose is purpose and adaptive is adaptive. 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...

 This usually becomes a cyclical arguement - meaning you cannot assume your right.

I assume nothing, im right period.:)

All great truths begin as blasphemies

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

 This message is a reply to: Message 194 by IamJoseph, posted 06-24-2008 2:55 PM IamJoseph has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 200 by IamJoseph, posted 06-24-2008 11:56 PM onifre has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1746 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007

 Message 199 of 273 (472829) 06-24-2008 11:42 PM Reply to: Message 196 by Straggler06-24-2008 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 responded

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

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1746 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007

 Message 200 of 273 (472830) 06-24-2008 11:56 PM Reply to: Message 198 by onifre06-24-2008 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 responded

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

onifre
Member (Idle past 1029 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008

 Message 201 of 273 (472847) 06-25-2008 8:29 AM Reply to: Message 200 by IamJoseph06-24-2008 11:56 PM

Re: Finite
 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?

There is no 'outside' the Universe. What I was refering to was the fact that we are only a 4 dimentional Universe within a Multi dimentional space. However, to your question, 'is everything within our Universe finite?', I would say yes. But only in the sense that I think you're asking the question.

 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!

A pineapple has no purpose, its there, you consume it cause you can, if it wasn't there you'd eat something else. And most importantly I was refering to its appearance being purposeless, not after the fact. Hell for all I know theres an island somewhere where they only have pineapples. I would imagine to those people the pineapple has purpose. But we weren't talking about purpose in the sense that *I* give it purpose, we meant in the sense of; is its existance do to a purpose or is the pineapple a result of adaptation that happen to spring out a pineapple(obviously not that simplified)?

The car is purposeful to us. However, to nature its a horrible destructive tool used by one particular species that doesn't give a shit about the enviroment. The car has caused more damage than good(over all). But just cause we give it purpose, doesn't mean it actually has one, get rid of humans and the car is just another hunk of metal that does absolutly nothing.

All great truths begin as blasphemies

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

 This message is a reply to: Message 200 by IamJoseph, posted 06-24-2008 11:56 PM IamJoseph has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 204 by IamJoseph, posted 06-25-2008 9:23 PM onifre has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

 Message 202 of 273 (472854) 06-25-2008 9:11 AM Reply to: Message 199 by IamJoseph06-24-2008 11:42 PM

Re: Change
 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?

I have no philosophical position regarding the universe. Finite, infinite it really makes no difference to me at all.

 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:

What is agreed? All I have ever disputed is your assertion that infinite = unchanging. Regardless of whether this is applied to the universe or anything else. I continue to dispute this. You continue to fail to demonstrate your position

 the universe is finite

If infinite = unchanging then it should apply to all things infinite not just the universe. Agreed?

 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.

How can the two line quotes you have cited say anything definitive about the nature of infinity when neither the word infinity nor the concept of infinity is mentioned in either of them???

How can you get infinite = unchanging from these two lines?

 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.

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.

Thus your argument is refuted by means of the very same flawed logic on which your argument is based.

 This message is a reply to: Message 199 by IamJoseph, posted 06-24-2008 11:42 PM IamJoseph has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 203 by IamJoseph, posted 06-25-2008 9:07 PM Straggler has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1746 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007

 Message 203 of 273 (472921) 06-25-2008 9:07 PM Reply to: Message 202 by Straggler06-25-2008 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.

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

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

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1746 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007

 Message 204 of 273 (472928) 06-25-2008 9:23 PM Reply to: Message 201 by onifre06-25-2008 8:29 AM

Re: Finite
quote:
There is no 'outside' the Universe. What I was refering to was the fact that we are only a 4 dimentional Universe within a Multi dimentional space. However, to your question, 'is everything within our Universe finite?', I would say yes. But only in the sense that I think you're asking the question.

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.

 This message is a reply to: Message 201 by onifre, posted 06-25-2008 8:29 AM onifre has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 208 by onifre, posted 06-26-2008 9:41 AM IamJoseph has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

 Message 205 of 273 (472972) 06-26-2008 8:23 AM Reply to: Message 203 by IamJoseph06-25-2008 9:07 PM

Re: Change
 Q1. THE UNIVERSE IS FINITE: YES/NO?

I don't know and contrary to your latest assertion it has no bearing on anything I do or don't believe. It is an interesting physical question to which the the answer has no philosophical consequences as far as I am concerned. I am happy to go with the current conclusions of mainstream science on this matter. These seem to have a far more rational foundation than your alternative theory based on your individual interpretation of 2 deeply ambiguous quotes. Neither of which mention infinity or the universe anyway.

That infinite = unchanging remains a baseless assertion on your part.
Thus your subsequent conclusions regarding the finiteness or otherwise of the universe are equally invalid.

 This message is a reply to: Message 203 by IamJoseph, posted 06-25-2008 9:07 PM IamJoseph has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 206 by IamJoseph, posted 06-26-2008 8:49 AM Straggler has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1746 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007

 Message 206 of 273 (472974) 06-26-2008 8:49 AM Reply to: Message 205 by Straggler06-26-2008 8:23 AM

Re: Change
quote:
That infinite = unchanging remains a baseless assertion on your part.
Thus your subsequent conclusions regarding the finiteness or otherwise of the universe are equally invalid.

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.

 This message is a reply to: Message 205 by Straggler, posted 06-26-2008 8:23 AM Straggler has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 207 by Straggler, posted 06-26-2008 9:34 AM IamJoseph has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

 Message 207 of 273 (472979) 06-26-2008 9:34 AM Reply to: Message 206 by IamJoseph06-26-2008 8:49 AM

Unchanging
 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 in fact pure logic: to be uneffected by something - the factor of non-changeability is obvious and not negotiable.

Once again logic fails you.

I have no disagreement with your concept or definition of change as far as I can see.
I have absolutely no disagreemnet that something which undergoes no change must be infinite.
You can indeed conclude that anything unchanging must be infinite.
However you cannot logically infer from this that everything that is infinite is necessarily unchanging.

In the terms of our earlier conversation - All ends are changes but not all changes are ends.

Again I give the example - All trees are plants but it obviously does not follow that all plants are trees!!

Even if we accept your dubious sources and interpretations you have still failed to demonstrate that a changing universe must be a finite universe.

 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.

Honestly I don't.
I am just pointing out your flawed logic. The nature of the universe with regard to infinite (or otherwise) is something I am interested in but about which I have no philosophical bias at all.

 This message is a reply to: Message 206 by IamJoseph, posted 06-26-2008 8:49 AM IamJoseph has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 209 by IamJoseph, posted 06-26-2008 3:25 PM Straggler has responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 1029 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008

 Message 208 of 273 (472984) 06-26-2008 9:41 AM Reply to: Message 204 by IamJoseph06-25-2008 9:23 PM

Re: Finite
 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.

What the fuck are you talking about? I asked you a question 'how would multi-verses work?'. I meant that to be 'how would they work within your finite spacetime thoery?'

I have lost nothing since I was holding to no particular side of an arguement. Are you that pathetic that you need to claim victory rather than try to express yourself clearer so people you speak to can understand your premises better?

Honestly I could careless about finite or infinte, I was just giving your premise the benefit of trying to understand it. I clearly said,

quote:
in the sense that I think you're asking the question.

That should have made you realize that I don't understand you and took a chance at answering what I thought you meant, a simple, 'no thats not what I was refering to' or 'no you are not understanding me', would have sufficed, but you wanna be a prick...well, then go fuck yourself.

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

All great truths begin as blasphemies

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

 This message is a reply to: Message 204 by IamJoseph, posted 06-25-2008 9:23 PM IamJoseph has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 210 by IamJoseph, posted 06-26-2008 3:34 PM onifre has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1746 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007

 Message 209 of 273 (473030) 06-26-2008 3:25 PM Reply to: Message 207 by Straggler06-26-2008 9:34 AM

Re: Unchanging
quote:
I have no disagreement with your concept or definition of change as far as I can see.
I have absolutely no disagreemnet that something which undergoes no change must be infinite.
You can indeed conclude that anything unchanging must be infinite.
However you cannot logically infer from this that everything that is infinite is necessarily unchanging.

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.

 This message is a reply to: Message 207 by Straggler, posted 06-26-2008 9:34 AM Straggler has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 216 by Straggler, posted 06-27-2008 10:17 AM IamJoseph has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1746 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007

 Message 210 of 273 (473032) 06-26-2008 3:34 PM Reply to: Message 208 by onifre06-26-2008 9:41 AM

Re: Finite
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.

 This message is a reply to: Message 208 by onifre, posted 06-26-2008 9:41 AM onifre has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Rew Prev 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 19 Next