big bang

hey this is my first post and i have been reading some of the questions and comments on this web page and they r truely thought provoking and some amazing.
i have a theory of my own.
i am a chistian, but i believe in the big bang theory, bc thats just me. but what i think is when the big bang happened, everything from that point on was already set into action and nothing could change. its hard to explain, but its like in the movie when they say we have no choice, everything has already been decided for us. when it all started, particles hit particles in just the right way that set the course for the entire history of hte universe and everything from then on had already been decided. maybe. im being redundant too but im trying to think about this and its hard to explain. and i dont know that i believe in that, but it hink it might make sense. neway love to hear if ne of yall understand this or have ur own ideas.

kyle

My friend.
Indeed, the big bang *did* occur, because all evidence (and the majority of belief, might i add) points toward it.
Truth, and its dependents, logic and thought, are by no means absolute.

If tomorrow every concious being in the world believed that the world was a flat disc on the back of an infinite column of turtles that stretched through the infinitely unchanging and vast cosmos, then _that_ would be the Truth tommorow.

Things are in being cause they *are*. There is no *why*.

Thus, this introduction allows me to introduce my point:
The future is what me make it. Indeed, every action, reaction and the continuance of such may have been plotted out already.
Welcome to Eastern Philosophy.

Each and every choice you make in your life is yours. Yet each moves in majestic accordance in the tapestry of what "will be".
This may seem a paradox at first, but when you realise that what is accepted to be "true" is actually a paradox in itself (i refer you to my previous point) the fact that choice is a function of fate is inescapably obvious.

If you would like to know more, keep posting. =)

I totally disagree. I feel that we make our own choices. That was God's gift to us, Free Will!! We do make our own decisions. Of course, you could never be sure whether you made the decision or it was made for you. However, if you truly believed what you are saying, then how do you decide anything. You cant just make any old choice and then say it had to be because that is the way it was planned.

"The future is what we make it. Indeed, every action, reaction and the continuance of such may have been plotted out already.
Welcome to Eastern Philosophy.
Each and every choice you make in life is yours. Yet each moves in majestic accordance in the tapestry of what "will be"."

Starseeker, may I extrapolate on your point?
I think what you call Eastern Philosophy has been grossly misinterpreted by Westerners to mean nothing more than "We are all in Allah's hand."

Of course, if one interprets the concept as such, as an intelligent being he would prefer to believe "I am in control over my own life" over "My choices really don't matter" or "My choices have already been made for me." This notion has been beautifully addressed by Bulgakov in "Master and Margarita."

This is my understanding of the concept of fate. Some things are pre-determined for me: I am not born a starving child in Africa, nor am Donald Trump's daughter. I am also not missing any legs or eyes, etc., which does largely affect the arrangement of my life. Thus some things are determined for me. What I do with these threads of destiny is largely up to me, hence the making of choices. Each choice I make will only take me as far as the next choice. But the location, timing, and content of the choice is already determined. Notice that Neo never CREATED any doors - he is only capable of walking through them. When Neo CHOSE to take the red pill, the choice to sacrifice his life to save Morpheus became possible. Had he taken the blue pill, his destiny would have utilized another algorithm (which begins with the taking of the blue pill).

Hence all the doors: once he walks through door A, all the doors behind door B are no longer available to him. But they were ALREADY THERE, as the doors behind door A are ALREADY THERE TOO.

So I suggest that the concept of fate should not be rejected as inherently fatalistic. Each door you open enables you to open the doors that follow. In a nutshell: your fate is already written, but you control it.

P.S. I am sorry if this is too long - I am not known for conciseness.

Some people say they believe in the Big Bang theory but not god. How can there be a Big Bang if "bang" doesn't exist.

This doesn't really have to go with anything but I gotta say it anyway.

How can your fate be written if you control it??? I think that you misinterpreted the use of the door theory. The theory is that you have a certain number of doors in front of you, when you take lets say door number 1, it leads to more doors, and any door you pick will give you more doors, or options to choose from.

Isn't that what I'm saying? You have a number of doors in front of you - THEY ARE ALREADY THERE.

It's like playing cards - you are dealt a hand, and it is what it is - you cannot change it (presuming you are not cheating). With those cards YOU MAKE THE MOVES - CHOICES. The cards you are dealt, the way you play them, and the way the other players play (it's like each time a card is laid down - a next set of doors appears) - those together lead to the outcome of the game FOR YOU. Notice that if you win the game (your outcome), for somebody else it is a loss, or a wash - a different outcome.

If tomorrow every concious being in the world believed that the world was a flat disc on the back of an infinite column of turtles that stretched through the infinitely unchanging and vast cosmos, then _that_ would be the Truth tommorow.

No it would not.

There is no human mental process you can engage that will change the laws of nature or erase facts.

You can decide to believe in something that's not true (like your example) - but the truth remains in existence independent of your conscious attempt to deny or change it.

Try to act in accordance with your new mentally created belief and chances are high you will perish - because it is in contradiction to reality.

True, some laws cannot be changed (I think!). But how do you know that the law you know at the moment is the real law?

A simple example: If you drew a very straight line anywhere on the flattest piece of the Earth's surface, it would, in fact, be curved, because the Earth is not flat - it is round. All the straight lines you ever drew in your life were never straight.

A hard example: What we know about the Big Bang now is that we know very little. I mean, there are processes that took place - that affect such fundamental laws as gravity - that the best minds of astrophysics and quantum mechanics admit this civilization may never be able to understand (we are not equipped as humans). Yet we all sit here and think that some truths are TRUTHS - because that is what we know now.

P.S. Stephen Hawking has some great books about this.

1. I do not believe in god, so any reference to him, to argue a point just says to me that you're all out of ideas. I'm NOT saying i can prove that there is no god (or any other higher power for that matter), i'm just saying that using him in the debate is irrelevant.

2. I agree with Roark in that even if everybody believes in something that has been proven to be different, this does not make it "true". It makes it the norm. Something we (humans) believe to be true.

3. Lastly, i believe that only a few have choices. There is no free will...at least not for the avarage man or woman on this earth. The powerfull have free will and they impose on us their will..but making it seem as if we could really alter our "fate", when in fact all we are, are puppets(i know it sounds corny but its true)

If you drew a very straight line anywhere on the flattest piece of the Earth's surface, it would, in fact, be curved, because the Earth is not flat - it is round. All the straight lines you ever drew in your life were never straight.


You prove my point.

If it were a true straight line in all 3 dimensions - it would HAVE to leave the surface of the earth. The RULE is you CAN'T draw an absolute straight line in 3 dimensions ON the surface of the earth because the earth's surface is curved.

that the best minds of astrophysics and quantum mechanics admit this civilization may never be able to understand (we are not equipped as humans)

This is not correct.

You utter the words (we can't understand) and ignore your place in history alongside early astronomers who claimed we could never know the composition of far away stars.

Everything we understand today - everything - has been previously written off as stuff we'll "never undersatand as humans".

Yet we as humans have grown to understand it and prove it.

Everything we don't know or understand today, as in the past, will be discovered tomorrow. As long as we as a species we choose to remain fully consciously engaged in the discovery of reality.

That is definitely the hope.

There are still concepts such as the divine that we, as a race, have not come to, at least, the mutual understanding of.

And then, how about such concepts as infinite density, for example? Our pursuit to understand black holes, I hope, will never stop, but we may simply not be equipped to understand/explain them. These aren't even really my words, I'm paraphrasing Hawking.

God knows everything that is and will be, before you do it. In that way, predestination exists, but you still make the choices that he already knows about.

And by the way, the guy that said if everyone believed that the earth was flat, it would be flat, you're ****ing ******ed. Everyone in the world DID believe it was flat, but that doesn't mean it was. ******.

if there was a god that knew everything... i don't think it would know exactly what people are going to do... it would probably know every single possible outcome but what happens is the choice of the individual... like in the architect scene in M2...:) well that's what i think anyway...

Ok, you are missing my point. The doors you choose are not pre-decided. You have free will. You can choose which doors you go through and which you don't.

I agree (on the contrary with what I said something different in my previous post).

Lets use a simple example.

Man in trouble with the law. Man says he has no choice but to surrender himself to the police. But man has choice. Man can kill himself, man can run and hide and so on.

I think there's always worse choices then what you first think would be the only choice. Although there isn't neccesarily a better choice, because most of the times a better choice requires some sort of power, be it money or millitary etc.

I believe that we are here because of something that does not want to be descovered because if it did then we would of found it by now

I agree we are here because of something that does not want to be discovered. That is also something largely discussed by the Cosmic Censorship - a controversial theory in astrophysics.

But why would we have found out by now? How are we any closer to understanding the divine than, lets say, two thousand years ago?

We theorize about the Big Bang just as we theorized about Genesis.

Thankyou for our fort in my absence, yanka!

A few things:

1. I think there is a very simple way to reconcile the view that you hold to be opposed to that of yanka's, Helix.
yanka at no point states that you are not free of choice.
But his point is that every choice you have already has its consequences planned out: - you cannot go through a door that does not exist, you cannot "create" a door. True indeed it is that you "choose" to walk through the door of your choice, but then the other doors, the other "maybes" and "might have beens" are lost to you, are they not?
Thus, while in choosing the doors you can excercise choice, in the fact that there are a finite number of doors and that these are inacessible to you after you have chosen suggest that *true* "free will" is an illusion.

2.
to quote Roark:
"No it would not.

There is no human mental process you can engage that will change the laws of nature or erase facts."

Then i put to you: what exactly *are* the laws of nature? That which we experience of the environment, that which surrounds us affecting us.
What exactly *are* facts? They are beliefs that we hold to be true, regardless of subjective observation.

recall Morpheus' speech to Neo about the nature of what is "real".

Both of these proposed tenets of 'truth' require the process of the human mind to interpret them and raise them to the abstract level of self-evident truths, that give them "being".
Thus, it is because we know they exist that they exist. We can see that they work, so we know that it is true.

It is exactly your refusal to accept another possiblity of truth contrary to your own is that powerful faculty of the human mental process that can make things real.

Nothing is real. For it to be real, we would have to say with total certianty that THIS WAS true, and not have any possible experiement that we could concieveably do contradict our "truth".
It is obvious that nothing lasts forever - entropy will increase - and change is the only constant. So therefore, it can be said that anything that is true now _will_ not be true later (or somewhere else, as space as well as time are possible dimensions for the mutability of reailty).

Thus, truth is a lie.

The only "truth" that can be reconciled with this is the acknowledgement that all reality stems from perception: and that perception is inseperably enterwined with the human mind. So, by definition, nothing that is real can possibly be abstract or distance from belief.



In an aside:
In Zen parables are grounded such beliefs:
"If there tree fell in a forest, and there was no-one there to witness it, did the tree fall?"

You would answer yes.
Schrodinger would answer, yes and no. At the same time.
A Zen master may spend his whole life in the contemplation of such a concept.

There was no begining and there is no end. The universe is infinite- just like the parametres of the universe- infinite. Time and integers are also infinite. Once you put borders like start, parametres, finish, end etc you must also ask what goes next or what was before the big bang etc. The easiest way to describe this is the theory that there is no borders or meaning to anything-only infinity.

Don't tell me everything started from an explosion of epic proportions. How did the explosion occur, where did the atomic or sub atomic particles come from, what fueled the explosion?
This theory of something from nothing is ridiculous. The easiest way to explain this is that there was no beggining as there is also no end.

Am i crazy????????????

That is very nice... :rolleyes:

My dear Starseeker,
I take my hat off (no sarcasm) in my most sincere appreciation of your insights. The hat is all feathery and pink or something, as I am a girl.

I have never troubled myself with learning about Zen, because Buddhist teachings always seemed to me the hardest to comprehend - I am very simple-minded (again, no sarcasm; and, yes, very lamentable). Instead, I lean toward the pagan/shinto/scientific. Yet, naturally, in regard to these thinkers, I am but a snail.

So, while I fully accept that there are no "truths", I hold that there is one TRUTH: Justice. Or, as Plato/Socrates put it, "Justice as Love." What does the Zen say about that - if anything? Is Nirvana empty or is there a TRUTH (other than "there is no truth)? I would most appreciate your comments.
Also, you say "So, by definition, nothing that is real can possibly be abstract or distanced from belief." Do you mean perception=belief, or am I missing a point?

I like to think in terms of astrophysics/quantum mechanics (not that I know anything about that either). The W. brothers said they wanted to pay tribute to the string theory in M2-3. The laws on a very large scale seem to be very different on a small scale, hence the fork from physics to astrophysics and quantum mechanics. The very nature of light - photones - particles is not and _might not_ be understood: are they wave or have mass? There is a thing about particles: you cannot predict them - they share information dually, and if you were to learn that info, they would have behaved another way (Cosmic Censorship?). Also Event Horizon in black holes; nay, the missing seconds in Big Bang...
What does Zen say? Can we ever know? Or we don't precisely because there is no TRUTH? Or we do in another state of being?

On another subject:
"recall Morpheus' speech to Neo about the nature of what is "real". "
What he said reeks of Descartes. But the skeptik theories have been rebutted over and over. Is Zen skeptic?

Hello, all thinking people.

I happened, by chance to "enter this door" as ya'll might say and check out this "grab bag" of topics in the Lounge.

I was bit surprised/pleased to see that yanka, Starseeker, The Protector, and all of you are talking about theology, metaphysics, astrophysics, Uncertainty Principle, particle duality, and free will. Yet, I was also not surprised that this thread quickly evolved into a discussion about what is Real and what is True, because I have observed a fact about people who like to think and talk -- they ALWAYS, eventually, talk about two things:

1) Where did the universe come from?
2) What is my place in it (i.e., am I free to choose and think)?

Both yanka and Starseeker have made several allusions to Hawking's A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME (it's turtles all the way down!) :), and a lot of you have dabbled in the idea of what is Truth, what are the laws of nature we observe, and are humans free to choose.

I am going to hit a few topics I've seen reading this post (and, like yanka, I'm not known for brevity, so forgive me in advance):

1) GOD AND REASON - I have never understood why the God who (I believe) wrote the Bible wouldn't also be the same cool Guy who created nuclear fusion, quantum mechanics, string theory, and black holes. In fact, I think He is just as clever about astrophysics as he is about redemption, which is why I love, like many of you, to read about Hawking, Big Bang Theory, etc. I think many people, especially intellectuals, decide at some point that the laws of the universe (which are based on our observations) cannot possibly get along with the laws of God. I would submit that every single time we believe the Physical World to be in conflict with God, it just means we have so more thinking to do.

2) THE LAWS OF NATURE - Someone made the excellent point that our beliefs, or even opinions, about something cannot alter the physical reality of that thing, or in other words, we all know the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees no matter how we feel about it. I think this is extremely important to remember, because we can all err about the physical world around us in two ways:

First, we can apply absolutely no value whatsoever to the physical world, say things like "reality isn't real" or "real is what you want it to be", and then we find ourselves in a fine kettle of fish. Because, whether you think reality is real or not, it most certainly is something you are going to have to deal with.

Second, we can apply absolutely limitless value to the physical world and prattle on about it being the only thing that really matters (no pun intend). But, to quote my favorite author of all time, "...in the whole history of the universe the laws of nature have never produced a single event...". In other words, we have to remind ourselves that our laws and theories, though they are always improving, are simply discrete attempts to explain the wonderous world around us, and I believe there is more to that world than just the purely physical. Netwon was a genius and postulated some great laws of nature. Einstein came along and built upon them. Humanity will continue to build upon them (Hawking's, etc) until we can reconcile how this great world WORKS. But I have no doubt that, even if we do finally figure out the Unified Theory of Physics, there will STILL be more to our universe than just the physical world.

So, we often find when talking about the philosophical, metaphysical, or theological (things that are not at all physical in nature), we have this urge to use things like astrophysics and natural law to prove/disprove points. Case in point, this thread started out with a discussion about the big bang (a completely physical theory about the birth of the physical universe), and it quickly evolved into a discussion that enompoasses God, free-will, etc. I believe, in the end, they will all reconcile themselves, because the God who created our soul is also pretty darn good at calculus. ;)

3) TRUTH IS A LIE - I saw this postead earlier, and I believe yanka responded to it by mentioning that she beileves that the, ultimate (I guess) truth is Justice. I think, if polled, each of us would have an idea about whta the "ultimate truth" is. I believe it is God, simply because I have to wonder about where we all got the idea in the first place that things like truth and justice are good?

I think the things in this world we think are true, good, real, whatever your adjective, or really, just attributes of the God who is the ultimate Truth, Goodness, or Reality.

Finally, I believe it is very dangerous, or at least undersirable, to make statements like "Truth is a lie" unless you are just being funny. If that were true, then what are we all doing here in the first place, what possible meaning can our words have, if:

Truth (the absence of falsity) = Lie (falsity)

If we can live in a universe in which something that is not is equated to something that is, then all of our reasoning, thinking, feeling, and talking is completely, utterly void of any and all meaning by defintion.

Whew, I am WAY too wordy, but I just wanted to introduce my thoughts so that all of you can pick them apart and make me smarter! Thanks for your patience...

out of the message boards and experiment with it on a busy strreet.

You'll learn very quickly that while your mind can pleasure you with all kinds of subjective ideas about what is and isn't real - reality will eventually ***** slap you.

You can believe that which is in opposition to reality - but you cannot LIVE that way. There are consequences.

Existence exists independantly from our consciousness. Your mind/brain/mental process cannot change the laws of nature and reality.

So while you can ask "what really is real?" and FEEL profound - if you take that idea and try to force in on reality, - a law like - let's say- gravity...

then it's...

REALITY - 1

YOU - 0

Time is infinite, yes. The universe is infinite...maybe- this has not been proven therefore you could also assume that there is an end to the universe. The big bang theory suggests that the big bang has happened before, as in there had been more then one big bang occurance. This doesn't mean that the time has gone back and started over, it just means that the universe is once again expanding (after the "bang") and will continue to expand untill it can expand no more. At this point it will start to contract untill, again, it can contract no more and there will be a sudden burst of energy and everything will start over (exept for time).

Hey guys, thanks for the replies, I don't really have time to check them out, but as soon as I do I will. I read a tiny portion and I am really impressed at how deep some of you can get. Very impressed. Anway just here to say to Naraku: Your sig too big, need to decrease it before the moderators delete it.

Well I g2g.


:D -Helix- :D

It just really amazes me how there are people who already know all of this stuff, and yet civilization is still trying to figure it out. Roark, why don't you write a book and state in it that the search is over - you have found the TRUTH!!!

Socrates' "I know that I know nothing" has been pondered on for over two millenia - why are all of these dumb people thinking about it??? Dalai Lama would spend his whole life contemplating whether there is a spoon - just because he is a moron, maybe???!!!

Oh, I think maybe you should just come to them and say "if you take that idea and try to force it on reality, - a law like - let's say- gravity... ", then you would see how stupid philosophers like you really are. I am sure Hawking (a man dumb people like me consider a genius) would indeed think himself really stupid. What, with all the discoveries that have been made that gravity is the weakest force of all! That while it seems to dominate on the large scale (planets, galaxies), it pales in comparison to forces that govern tiny things (particles), and on yet very large scales (superclusters) its influence has not been figured out. That this LAW is, in fact, DIFFERENT from itself!
You should just really post a note to all of these mad scientists: "Gravity is. I know that it's here because it acts upon me, and I am only here - neither a particle nor a supercluster. That's that, and there is nothing more to it." Then they would undoubtedly conclude that the efforts to explain why this TRUTH such as gravity is so different on different realms as to appear to be TWO OR MORE DIFFERENT TRUTHS, and at singularities (black holes) fails to exist at all - all of these efforts are in vain!!

Or no, maybe that note you would post... What if it proves Starseeker's point precisely? What is the TRUTH? Does any single truth really exist? Maybe TRUTH really is only relevant to our perception? Should we now sit down and try to figure out what [our] perception is?

Enough with the sarcasm.
The matter of fact is that you have to be equipped with the stuff necessary to think about other stuff, stuff that follows. Come on, nobody really just sat down one day and thought "I think I'll say something really controversial, just to give people something to argue about." The stuff you need is not brain power - that is what you utilize just to BEGIN thinking. Then you learn. Before you can do calculus you have to LEARN algebra. I am sure that Dalai Lama thinks about a whole lot of stuff before he arrives at a question like "Is there a spoon?"

Let's stop being arrogant, and let's learn. At least enough to know what the f*** we are talking about.
And that brings me to my next contender, The Protector.

The Bing Bang Theory suggests that there MIGHT have been another Big Bang. Nobody is in agreement on whether the universe will contract and implode or expand forever, and all the things that follow. All they know is that it is expanding at a growing rate. To quote my dear friend Starseeker "change is the only constant"

"... it will start to contract untill, again, it can contract no more and there will be a sudden burst of energy and everything will start over (exept for time)."

As I pointed out, nobody is sure about that yet. But what is more important is that you say a thing like "everything will start over (except for time)". No. Time does not transcend the universe. It begins and ends with it. It is the fourth dimension, it is unavoidably intertwined with space, hence the "fabric of spacetime." Whether the universe contracts, expands, or stops - so does time - it cannot exist outside of the universe. And there is no astronomy book that will tell you otherwise.

What I love about this site, and this thread in particular, is the possibility to have a conversation. In order to converse, we all need to be equipped with some tools. Preferably tools that allow us to carry this conversation on the same level. I mean, if you tried to explain calculus to me, and I did not know algebra, it is plausible that I would say "What you're saying is such bull****, it makes no sense, and simply isn't so!"

See you just conteradiced yourself. First you say that the big bang theory has not been proved yet- why? - because nobody was there to see it. Humans have a tendancy to believe things they see through their own eyes of the "eye" of a telescope or a microscope.

But then you say that there time is dependant on the matter or energy contained within the parameters of space. Correct me if I'm wrong but has this been proven beyond any doubt? I think not.
I think time is a 4th dimension like you say but i think its completely indepentant from the other 3 in that that it keeps going in only one direction never stopping never changing paths.

I do not beleive that I said that the Big Bang Theory has not been proven (although, as any "theory" - you are right - it has not been proven). I say that there is no concensus on whether Big Bangs are multiple, or there was only one.

I do not, therefore, say, that the Big Bang Theory has not been proven because there was nobody to see it. Big Bang, i am pretty sure, is not observable (is that even a word?) with a telescope, and, given that none of us were there to witness it, had I said what you said I said, that would be, no doubt, the easiest way to throw the Big Bang theory out.

Furthemore, I do not say that time is dependant on the matter or energy contained within the parameters of space. I say that it is one of the 4 dimensions of spacetime. It is just like any of the three spacial dimensions - the axes are x, y, z, and t.

Of course, if you'd like, you can think that time is a 4th dimension (not "like I say it"- like the textbooks do), at the same time independent from the other 3, but I think astronomy professors would tend to disagree with you, to put it lightly.

Yes they would dissagree but not because they are right but because they think they are right. Similarly you think the same thing about our little argument here.

Dude, it is not like it's a conspiracy.

This is my last attempt at explaining the "proper" tools necessary to carry a meaningful conversation.

Here's how it works.

People agree that 2*2=4 (algebra). Precisely because it is convinient for them. If you agree on this axiom, then the higher levels of math can be (as they were, in time) developed, and DO work. If you agreed that it was five, it would be an inconvenient axiom, because then y'=2x (calculus) would not work. If you pick a convinient given, you can base your further conclusions on it. If conclusions don't work, there are two options: revise the given (axiom) or revise the conclusion.

Long after the turtles, people thought that the world was perfectly round, and the sun orbited around it. It turned out to be an inconvenient assumption, as it did not explain virtually all the things that happened in the sky. The assumption was revised. Notice that if you're still convinced that it's turtles, the reason that it is the earth orbiting the sun, not otherwise, would not seem logical to you, or else - be totally irrelevant.

Astronomy has come a long ways since then, and about 50-60 years ago an astronomer named Hubble noticed (through his telescope and other devices) that all stars, and all galaxies seem to move away from each other. The scientific community was shocked by this discovery, so all the scientists ran to their labs and began exploring the possibilities that might explain this strange discovery. They looked at Einstein's theory of relativity, and, after making one mistake (inconvenient assumption) after another, agreed on a CONVENIENT assumption (that was postulated, in turn, some decades before that). They assumed spacetime was 4-dimensional.

That construct explains the expansion of the universe CONVENIENTLY. I urge you to revise it - that is how the world works. Maybe you're the next Newton (again, no sarcasm).

Now, all of these scientists again ran back to their labs, and made observations, and calculations, and wrote papers, and won Nobel prizes; and after all of that trouble of trying to CONVENIENTLY explain the seeming (via observation) expansion of the universe, they agreed on something. Now, this agreement doesn't happen just because. Stephen Hawking thinks of something, publishes it, and invites all of his colleagues to contradict him. They try as hard as they can (that is the pursuit of science - constantly doubt everything), and after they can't find anything to suggest that his proposition does not adequately explain the situation, they agree for it to be the CONVENIENT assumption.

Now, what that assumption was, was that if the universe is as large as it is now, it must have been much smaller before. How much smaller? One-tenth smaller? One-millionth smaller? Maybe infinetly smaller? They agreed that it was infinetely smaller because it seemed to fit best with their previous assumption - that spacetime was four-dimensional. That is how the Big Bang Theory was born.

There are, as you correctly pointed out, many people who don't agree with this Theory, and I'd bet any amount of money that they are trying to disprove either of the two things:
1. Spacetime is not 4-dimensional
2. The universe did not start out as infinetely small.

That is how science works. Now, due to your age (or other reasons), you may yet not have studied astronomy in college. If that is the case, then when (and if) you do, you will find this stuff in the textbooks. You will also find that it is (surprise!) much more complicated, and, in fact, quite different than what I have explicated here. And, you will find that astronomy is the science that trys to explain the motions and such things of planets, stars, etc.

Philosophy is the science that tries to explain all things.

As such, it tries to answer the question "Is there a spoon?" from ALL perspectives - math, physics, astronomy, chemistry - you name it. As with any other science, there are many disagreements between philosophers. Some argue that there is a spoon, and some - that there is not. There are many more other arguments, as you might suspect.

In order to understand their arguments (just as it must be understood that 2*2=4 first and foremost), I had to learn a lot of other - sort of beginner-level - philosophical and theological stuff. Once I acquired these very basic tools, I was able to move to the more complicated questions (just as those who have not yet studied astronomy would not be able to comprehend that the Big Bang Theory can ONLY work in 4-dimensional spacetime).

These are the tools I am talking about! Sorry it takes so long to expain it, but you must understand what I already learned in order for me to meaningfully converse with you!!!!!! Otherwise what I'm saying would all be irrelevant/not logical TO YOU (like with the turtles).

Now, I don't want to be misunderstood. I AM NOT SAYING THERE IS NO SPOON. I do not have many arguments for or against. I do want to LEARN what these arguments are, hence my questions to Starseeker (where are you?:) )

I want to learn his arguments. Then (and only then - not before), given my spiritual convictions, logic, and other aspects of my situation, I can see if I agree with them or not.

I know god exists, ( my church is irrelivent in this conversation right now to lessin any possible arguments) , but yet trying to prove it is a different story. It is simple though. I will put it in a scientific so way anyone can understand without argument...

TOPIC: WITHOUT a higher being, "ORDER" cannot exist. and we all know that every little thing u see has some type of ORDER to it.
If it didnt have order.. it would not happen more than once. Let me explain.....

You are in a chemical lab for instance....


When u mix Chemical A w/ Chemical B (the 2 chemicals r always the same) , you always get the same effect. WHY? cause theres order! If there was NO order then there would be a different reaction every time.


PS. (think about this carefully and ponder) Without "intelligence" , nothing exists. Think about that people. :cool:

The only thing you've PROVEN is that humans love to explain away gaps in knowledge as the works of a supreme being.

We've done it for millenia.


Lets start here - Existence exists.

In order for existense to exist, existence requires objects to possess a nature and behave according to that nature.

Atoms, for example behave in specific ways and combine with others in very specifc ways and that's it. That's the nature of atoms. An atom cannot act in defiance of it's nature, it cannot for example, order a pizza. It's not it's nature.

You call this nature of things "order". Fine. We agree that the nature or "order" of things is a necessity of existence.

But you then take a LEAP OF FAITH that because there is "order" and that "order" is necessary for existence, then there MUST BE a supreme being imposing the "order".

But MUST BE is not proof.

MUST BE is merely mysticism used to fill the hole left by a gap in knowledge. The gap in this case is "what causes the order".

The fact is - "order" exists because without it there is no existence. The very fact that we're discussing this proves that ORDER exists - but ORDER does not PROVE the existence of supreme being anymore than last weeks Lunar Eclipse proves it.

I just want to say something about the Big Bang theory.

I know a bit about supermassive blackholes and the Big Bang and made up the theory that the Big Bang could have come from a supermassive blackhole inside another universe.
As the energy that can be stored in a singularity is apparently infinite so maybe this particular supermassive blackhole wasn't a proper singularity and was an anomoly.

This all depends on whether the universe is real as I know that someone here, (after reading the whole disscussion), will probably state something like: "That depeends on what 'Reality' is" or something along the lines of that thinking.

Also, to john_galt:
we all know the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees no matter how we feel about it.
OK, I agree that a "2D" triangle can add up to that but an angle of a triangle can also add up to more or less than 180 degrees depending whether a universe has a positive curvature or a negative curvature. (This would be of a spacial dimension.

Just a couple of thoughts there to think about even more. :)

Roark. Heh heh heh. let me ask u somthin.... This goes for everybody.


Why are we here?

If the awnser is "we are not here for any reason its just nature (or some crap like that), then wouldnt life be the greatest tragety of all? They're would be nothin to live for.

and there are only 2 awnsers. We r here 4 a purpose, or not. If we r then there is a higher being.

Roark,

This argument is very valid - "there must be" is not a reason, and it is quite incomplete.

Suppose you have a desk, and everything on it is in order. You imposed that order on your desk becuase it obviously serves some function to you: it helps you find papers quickly, etc. That order revolves around YOU - without you, there would be no order. I do not mean that in the metaphysical sense, but sheerly in the sense or functionality. If it was my desk, there would be a different order on it. The order stops being order if it does not revolve around some reasoning.

If it was a chicken arranging papers in order on your desk, it could arrange them in such an order as to make a nest or something. That order, that arrangement would now serve the chicken's function, due to the chicken's reasoning on how a nest is best arranged.

Without any reasoning, it would be impossible to tell whether there is any order on your desk, and that reasoning must be able to comprehend what functionality is being served - its or the chicken's. Because if you didn't know about the chicken's functionality, and saw a mess on your desk, you would indeed think it chaotic, not ordered.

No reason - no order. There is some functionality that is being served by the order of things in the universe. That functionality is only meaningful if there is some kind of reasoning behind it.

Now, from here it's anybody's guess. Does this reasoning belong to some being? I would not see how that necessarily follows. And especially to attribute to it some mystical characteristics, etc...
Or to even say that this reasoning began the universe - I just do not see how that could be logically supported. But if anybody can, please share your thoughts.

That is a good point.
But, I don't believe in God. (No offence to anyone who does. Sorry but I had to say this to contribute to this disscussion).

I don't know why, I just kind of feel that there couldn't have been, (or is), a God. For some reason or another I think that scientifically things are better off than things that seem sort of, "abnormal" and not alot of evidence is around to support things like big miracles if you like. (I.E: Raising people from the dead). Although this is sort of what The Matrix is about, but I prefer to think of the scientific points of view and not the religious ones. (I'm strange like that to some people, but that's the way I am.) :-/

If the awnser is "we are not here for any reason its just nature (or some crap like that), then wouldnt life be the greatest tragety of all? They're would be nothin to live for.

Tragedy?

How could something as wonderful as human consciousness be a tragedy? It is, as far as we know today - the greatest force in the universe - the ability to UNDERSTAND!

For all the great forces at work in nature - only human consciousness (that we know of yet) has the power to unlock, decode and understand the world in which it exists.

Hardly a tragedy. And if you need a purpose - that's it.

The real question for you is WHY do YOU need some "other-worldly" purpose to enjoy and appreciate the life you have?

Why is your life "not worth living" if you're not living it for some imaginary ghost? Or according to this ghosts pre-definded PURPOSE for you. Are you a slave? A mere spritual robot?

Are you not good enough to deserve your own life so you must only live it for the invisible man in the sky?

WHY must "mystical" and "super-natural" ghosts be "controlling everything" in order for your life to have value?

Are the obvious and objectivly REAL mysteries of THIS world not enough to excite you? :confused: :confused:


They're enough for me.
:cool:

good points yanka. thank you.

Here is the definition of FAITH: to KNOW something is there in which you cannot PROVE. The only way you can exercise your KNOWING of the lord is by following his commandments and through true , sincere prayre. I can go on and on but if you r not ready 4 the lord yet, then you wont exept him, YOU will turn from him.
Whether you believe or not, sooner or later you will come to realize your own mortality whether its now , or 20 years later, or on your death bed and question yourselfs "why am i here" with the upmost seriousness with out the worldly things distracting you. (like the matrix believe it or not, its very worldly:))

I KNOW the lord exists with total confidence, i used to be athiest, i hated the name god. the thought was totaly rediculase. I used to be like a majority of u in here. Iwont jiber jabber right now cause truthfully i will just get a bunch of negative argument, but thats OK.

PS im not preaching.... afterall, to u guys.. its just a point of view, right.

;)

Roark,

I think your argument is beautiful. Do you think W.Brothers might be trying to say somehting along the same lines? Nobody NEEDS anybody, unless they choose to. As long as you are on a quest for understanding, no higher purpose is logically necessary.

I think you've turned the concept of "order" into something subjective by using items on a desk as a metaphor.

This is why I prefer to use the concept of "nature" instead.

While you and I can have different opinions about the "order" of a stapler and other items on the desk - we cannot logically dispute the stapler's "nature".

It is an inanimate object, and it remains so no matter where on the desk it is placed.

And that's it's nature. It is what it is. Our minds cannot alter it's nature.

The nature of other items of course serve a valuable purpose- I used atoms as an example.

So unlike your desk, where order is subjective - the nature of things is not - regardless of how much thinking is applied to it.

Applying reason to any situation pre-supposes existence.

Reason cannot exist if existense does not.

So, to claim (as you have) that reason is a pre-cursor to the very foundation of existence (the nature of things) is a contradiction and cannot be true.

There cannot be SOMETHING before there was ANYTHING. Believing there can be is the very essence of mysticism.

I could not even pretend to know what they're up to.

I do know that most stories have a message the writer is trying to communicate dramatially.

It' funny, that even while questioning "reality", The Matrix does provide that there exists a reality that is beyond the simulation.

It acknowledges that in order for there to even BE a simulation - there must be a place for the simulator to exist - the real world.

It may simply ask us to question how detached from reality we are at any moment.

How many levels removed from pure reality are we when we're watching TV, or playing video games, reading a book, going to school or work or talking on the internet like this.

How many simulations of a simulation are we as humans willing to accept as reality. Knowing, just like a copy machine, every copy (or simulation based on a simulation) reduces the quality of the original.

:cool:

YANKA, you might not know it , but you did alot of my talking for me! (Why would we be here if we didnt have the ability of choice?) If we could not choose, we would have no purpose being here. You can choose anything you want, do whatever, say anything you want, you can pick up a knife and kill somebody, or you can help somebody push their out of gas car to the gas station.... its your choice , but its the choices we make that will determine if we will love or hate the next life to come.

I don't think anyone wishes you ill because of your religious beliefs. Certainly not me.

But I'll also go out on a limb and take a guess that no one want to be preached at either.

You brought your religion to the conversation saying you could PROVE the existence of a supreme being. :eek:

That's pretty heavy lifting.

Religion is and should be a deeply personal matter.

I think religion helps many people. I hope it helps you.

Just lay off the whole meet your maker death bed stuff. Very uncouth!

:D

NEOsporin, darling, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I would not sign under anything you just said (and most things you said before). Furhtermore, I do not believe that I ever alluded that I believe there is God. I value atheistic arguments (if they are well-presented), and, as I said, Roark presents his very well.

Roark

I know that I did not explain myself well about the chicken and the desk, and that is why you fail to understand the argument. Yet the argument is purely logical. I will try to find it (it is not mine - a scholar's whose name I can't remember), and post it here. I will not, therefore, return to it just yet.

About the Matrix. I read in their interviews etc. that they intentionally refer to Buddhism. And Buddhism - in my understanding - says there is no spoon, but I am not knowledged on the subject at all.

I do understand. The chicken idea is simply another way of saying the "order" is subjecitive depending on WHO is looking at the desk.

I answered this idea. Order - as you have defined it can be subjective - a mess to me is a functional home nest to the chicken.

However - this idea does not translate to the very nature of things.

That the chicken has made a nest out of objects on the desk DOES NOT CHANGE the nature of those items - they are still inanimate objects - they are what they are.

That they are assembled into a pile that LOOKS like a mess to me, but is a very functional nest for the chicken does not change the NATURE of the items.

Thus - that everything has and acts ONLY according to it's nature is what makes existence possible. It's the nature of things - not order.

If the nature of things were subject to whim, or an indiviuals "purpose" or perspective - existence could not exist.

Well , if you really read all my statments you would know that I was not out to PROVE anything. Only to TRY and put it into a perspective you MIGHT understand. Second, I was not preaching, i told u that already. You were doing exactly what i was doing... a healthy argument. If you say I was preaching, then that means you were preaching as well. Just not about god. You were preaching about the "nature" of things. I did not ask you to believe, afterall , this whole thread is based on theories on how everything started in the universe right?

ps... you may NOT think about what happens when u die now, but later u will, whether its believing in god or wicca or buddha or nothing at all. And i didnt say what i said to make you get pissed off. I didnt say this stuff for you get mad.

im just curious in other peoples opinions about their outake on life. Afterall, we can CHOOSE...right?:)

I don't doubt that in my final moments I will most likely look to "heaven" or "GOD".

But I already understand WHY I will do this. And it's not because of a last minute conversion. It's simple conditioning.

I don't believe in the idea of a supreme being nor in the "after-life".

However, I was raised in a Catholic family.

I've been conditioned since I was a very small child that there is a GOD who looks down from heaven and knows everything I do and say and think and WILL judge me for my life here on earth before letting me into his kingdom apon my death.

This religous conditioning, that I can easily out manuever right now will probably over-take me as I reach the "moment of truth" - my death.

And in that moment I will either "believe" - frightened by the concept of my own non-existence or I will not.

Hey roark, so no bad blood between us right?:( LOL


I've respected your opinions this whole time. It is the "opinions" in which i love to hear. You remind me of ........well...........ME! That is why I got hooked on the subject. This was indeed one of the best conversations I have had on this website. Thank you.


im sure we will talk again... next time it will be of the matrix though!


later homie
:cool:

:cool:

I agree completely with what you have said. From the beggining people have feared things that they could not explain or things that they couldn't forsee. This would explain the creation of religion.

Neosporin let me as you this.

If you say you were an atheist at one point what made you change your mind. I'm curious. I mean for me to change my beliefs would take someone/thing with real solid facts. I mean I'd litterarly had to see god for my self to believe.

In my advanced science class we we're talking about the same thing. My theory is that it isn't real it's not true, much like the matrix world, where people are not yet plugged. I know how the explosion could have started but how could every single little thing be put in it's perfect place. How could we not be too close, but yet too far away from the sun. how could the planets be in the perfect place, so they wouldn't collide. that brings up another thing. the moon. they say that a very big asteroid collided with the earth which sent a chunk of the earth into space, orbiting arond the earth. now if that is true why is the moon spherical and not just any ol shape. Also in my science class, we're discussing evolution. I don't believe in that either, i'm christian. If we evolved from apes why are there still some left. I read in my textbook, that an ancient animal of the feline ancestry evolved into a whale. first it looked like a cheetah, then an otter, after that a cheetahs head with long flippers, finally a whale. iN A WHALE, THEY HAVE A BONE THAT IS NOT used, scientists say that it used to be a hind leg, that whales used to walk on land. Anyway, that;s my theory.


JT

It's your opinion to believe whatyou want.I know the only things I have to do in life is die and pay taxes.

hmmmm thats pretty sad. No offence, you seem very down to earth, but maybe too down?

What point is there to life when all you have to look forward to is death and paying somebody else.

I still live with my parents (i'm 16, i don't plan to leave for another 4 -5 years), but i sure as hell hope i don't turn that pessimistic.

lol still no offence meant.


:cool: :D

You do not understand the argument - again, because I explained it poorly. I have also made another mistake, and failed to read your post carefully.

"You call this nature of things "order". " (I think you said this to NEOsporin).

My argument by no means equates "nature" and "order". Nature of things is an illusion, and I do not mean decay, or external influences (like splitting atoms) - refer to my very long post on gravity :D and another one on the duality of particles. For good measure, throw in The Genius' post about triangles and the curvature of spacetime. This is also a good time to apologize for my earlier sarcasm.
Anyway, by "order" i do not mean "nature". Nature is fleeting and deceitful. Order either IS or IS NOT.

The point is NOT whose perspective the order is seen from. That is irrelevant to the argument. The point is: for there to be order on the desk, some functionality must be served by it. We assume that that kind of functionality is an attribute only of those with capacity for reasoning (you, me, or the chiken).

Somebody could have just thrown those papers on the desk. It would be a mess, a chaos.

Now, let us, as you propose, stop the metaphor. The planets, the atoms, the clusters could all be in chaos while appearing to be "in order" to us. They could have been just "thrown" there, without any reason, serving no function. By lucky chance they would happen to serve our functionality of understanding the universe (we are capable to understand the universe because it is (or seems to be) ordered. Were it a chaos - as it could be - our predictions would sometimes work and sometimes not, and maybe they have only worked SO FAR.)

It would have to be a giant coincidence. I would not hazard to guess what the probability would be. I would think it more probable that there is order. Nonetheless, I cannot disprove that it is not a coincidence.

Any sarcasm you dished out wasn't poorly received so no worries.

My perception of your point is this.

That it's possible for the universe to be in chaos (not ordered). And we've not detected it as such - in fact we see order where there might not be any at all and our evidence of "order" might merely be coincidental.

Correct?

Now, do I think this is possible or even likely?

No.

And my reason is based on - you guessed it - the nature of things. My use of the term "nature of things" refers explicitly to the "way things behave" from the smallest particles to the largest systems.

The "nature of things" are NOT, as a concept, ephemeral as you suggest when you say ""Nature of things is an illusion"".

If they were we could not construct anything. We could not depend on photons and electrons and neutrons to behave according to a set "nature" - nothing could exist. In fact, nothing would exist. This reflects the state some cosmologists propose preceeded the "ordered" universe.

Everything behaves according to their nature - whether we've discovered that nature or not.

The Sun behaves the way it does because of it's nature. It acts in strict accordance with this nature and cannot deviate or change it.

It cannot for example, stop being a star and spring a water based atmosphere like that of earth any more than it could develop consciousness and send us messages - it's not in it's nature. Only interaction with OTHER elements can alter an element's nature.

However, there is no illusion to the nature of things. Existence depends on all of it's elements behaving according to it's nature.

Regarding "order" as you mean it.

ORDER = A condition of logical or comprehensible arrangement among the separate elements of a group.

Yes??

You said - "for there to be order, some functionality must be served by it".

The answer is Existence. Existence IS the functionality served by order.

The proof - existence exists.

yanka, i think you r thinking to hard bro. I bet u feel frustration when u r explaining your stuff. I dont understand a word u r saying... no offense. or i could be getting a cheap post outa this. its your call!:D

Only interaction with OTHER elements can alter an element's nature.

I assume you are talking about the elements that we have discovered to exist that are listed on the periodic table. If you are then also other sub-atomical particles can change the "nature" of the element.

Correct me if I'm wrong though :)

why is the moon spherical and not just any ol shape.

The reason it is spherical in shape is because it is gravvity that pulls on all directions and then clumps itself into a sphere. That wasn't very well explained but that's the principle of spherical spacial bodies.

We all believe what we choose to believe in, and we defend what we believe in. But that doesn't make you eligible to doubt other beliefs. Sure there could very well be a god and a messiah, and sure there could be the big bang. But you see either way, no one is getting anywhere if questions are kept being asked, and not answers.

Yep! You're correct.


EliteZion44
Your post is classic relativism. You said we all believe what we belive...

But that doesn't make you eligible to doubt other beliefs

Why not? What if the belief that I want to doubt is that the Sun revolves around the earth?

Not only as rational beings are we "eligble", but we have a DUTY to doubt and disprove beliefs that are based on fabrications or defy reason and fully integrated knowledge.

Lacking the complete knowledge to arrive at a definitive answer about a matter does not allow the matter to be anything our mind conjures. The lack of complete knowledge does not place the matter beyond question. In fact just the opposite. Because the matter is what it is independent of our cognition it's our responsibility to question, debate and discover it's true nature.

"for there to be order, some functionality must be served by it".The answer is Existence. Existence IS the functionality served by order.


Point VERY well taken (remember, I'm not saying there is no spoon - I don't buy the skeptic argument, and I know nothing of the Buddhist one). Now there is one small step left.

The order is arranged in such a way that the functionality of existence would be served by it (it, the order). But, as we can see from the chicken argument, there must be a reasoning behind the arrangement of the order (again, without SOME reasoning it is impossible to impose/arrange order, let alone comprehed what it is that is being arranged). If you now ask the question: "Whose reasoning does the function of Existence serve?", then you could arrive at an answer like "God". That is why I prefer NOT to ask this question.

Instead, I would suggest that whoever is reading this looks at the quote at the top. It now becomes possible to say that Existence is the Resoning in itself. I am not trying to ascribe "animate" characteristics to Existence - merely the capacity for reasoning.

I think some people sort of intuitively pick up on this, and then they blow the whole thing out of proportion by thinking they can understand this Reasoning, by calling it (Reasoning) God, and by further inventing myths about It, and - worst of all - insisting that they know what this Reasoning wants them to do with their lives, etc...

Now I will sort of make my own rebuttal.
People much smarter than me seem to agree that it is impossible to logically argue that there is God. Again, I am not stating that Existence's Reasoning is God, but I can see how my argument would fall victim to this agreement.

Now, to the nature of things. So far I have not found any convincing argument to reject my point. Therefore, I stand by it. Nature is an illusion :confused:.

Roark, again, your point is very well taken. The sun's nature is what it is. However, it is interesting that you bring up photons. We "know" that light's nature is wave. However, there is now evidence emerging that light is particles - with mass (The Genius - need a little help!!). That is what I would refer to when I say that we might not, as humans, be able to comprehend "the nature of things." We are, though, able to detect and/or comprehend Order.

Roark, there is a book by these Russian science fiction writers, and I get a lot of my argument from it. Naturally, these guys' presentation is much better than mine. Their names are Boris and Arkadi Strugatsky, and the name of the book would be translated something like "A billion years before the end of the world." If anything, it is just really interesting reading. If you can't find it, let me know, I will look for the name of the book in English.

Let's not stop this thread! It is so thought-engaging/provoking, and I absolutely love this whole discussion! Roark, I checked out some of your other threads too...


P.S. I am a girl - that is just to other people who referred to my arguments as "his", and to me as a "bro." :p

Amen,bro.

I did see some info on light apparently being particles, but it has escaped my memory and where I saw it.
I think it had something to do with dark matter/energy or something along the same lines. It apparently travels in a wave form, BUT, using the particles to create more energy from the "existance" of the atoms. :) That's what I think would be also possible, as apparently, water can be split down into water, even though NOT a molecule. (As in it's not even water anymore, but it can hold a type of physical memory in it when broken down into something smaller than a molecule, but not an atom). Don't ask me what these other units of measurement are reffered to as I can't remember (lol).

That should help a bit. :)

Also, about the universe:

If there is enough matter in the universe to hold it's gravitational pull outside the universe, then it will eventually collapse into a "cosmic egg". If there isn't enough, then it will simply carry on going similar to the steady-state theory, but with the begining as the Big-Bang. :)

Thanks. I have never heard this thing about the water. Where can I read up on it?

Yanka, obviously u know that there has to be reasoning behind "order". So that means that there has to be somthing behing the "reasoning" . So that somthing behind "reasoning" must have some sort of an intelligence to do so, otherwise there is nothing making a "reason".

And if there is reasoning behind the universe, then everything in the universe has "reasoning". Which means that WE would have "reasoning." (im sure you are hating what i have to say when u read this:) ) And what would our "reason" be? to just die off out of existence? If we had a "reason" for being here, i know its not to work, crap, piss and die off out of existence. If there is "reasoning" then we have a "reason" for being a part of it, which leads to my final statment.... If there is "reason" then what is our reason for having an intellegence but with the capacity of contemplating our own existence? BUT if there is no reasoning, no order then their just can be an existence. It just doesnt make sense at all. If you look around, you can see the obvousness of order. Which leads to reasoning, which leads to our reason for being here. Am i making any kind of sense from YOUR point of view?


PS. i dont want to start a fight on this topic, only a healthy argument OK? cause i know there will be arguing:D

i meant to say "there just CANT be an existance" in my final statment..............sorry:)

I think I saw it on Horizon or something a while ago. Only last week I think actually. Obviously what I said will not be exactly what they said on the programme, but I think it's roughly what it said about "water memory". I also read about it somehwere else but I totally forgot about that. I think I went on Google and searched for something like "water molecule memory" and I checked out what it was then but in more detail.
The Horizon website is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/

There should be some stuff in the archives of what it was. But seeing it was only on about last week, then maybe they haven't got the full detail up yet. Maybe they have... :)

The identity of objects is not an illusion. Even your example of light being of particles. That fact and discovery does not change the inherant objective Identity of light. It only changes OUR understanding of the nature (identity) of light. The actual objective nature of light has not changed. The identity (or nature of light) remains as it's ALWAYS been. It is OUR understanding that has changed. It is US who have peeled another layer back off of reality and exposed it.

Remember - anytime there is a contradiction or appearance of the un-real "illusion" that signfies only 1 thing. A gap in our knowledge. For such things as contradictions and the "un-real" cannot exist in objective reality.

Regarding order. Existence necessitates order. I think there's an assumption that order cannot exist in it's own right - that it must be created and there must be a reasoning behind it. One might imagine there being a big messy desk in the sky and some reasonable thing came along and arranged the materials into a odered Universe.

But the Universe is EVERYTHING. And as such there is no before and there can be no after EVERYTHING and nothing CONTAINS it.

It is everything.

There's no rationality in thinking that before EVERYTHING there was SOMETHING. Yet that's exactly what we need to think to necesitate a "pre-order" reasoning.

The only reasoning is that without the order existence would not be. There is no alternative. Either existence exists - or it does not.

We're still beating around the same bush.

WHY is there existence instead of non-existence?


ps - It's cool yanka's a chick. Most chicks aren't into this kind of stuff. Bravo yanka!
:D

i will awnser your quwstion roark.

why is there existance instead of non existance?



Awnser) because consciencness contimplates existance. We are aware of it. With out consciencness, existence is irrelevent. There would be nothing to say that their is existence. which bring up some of my past statments. (from my point of veiw)

sorry, wrong word...consciencness confirms existence.


yanks a chick, thats nice!:) never would a known that!

within existence. It was not a precursor. It's not a reason FOR there to be existence rather than non-existence.

"Irrelevence" is a human conceptual abstraction - it's not an irreducible primary required for existence. So it cannot be an answer to WHY existence over non-existence.

Much appreciation.


NEOsporin,

Dear, why would I hate what you're saying? Like you, I want this to be an argument, not a fight.

Yanka, obviously u know that there has to be reasoning behind "order". So that means that there has to be somthing behing the "reasoning" . So that somthing behind "reasoning" must have some sort of an intelligence to do so, otherwise there is nothing making a "reason".

So far I agree with you. But than you take something that Roark might call "a leap of faith" and say
And if there is reasoning behind the universe, then everything in the universe has "reasoning".
The reason I say it is a leap of faith is because I do not see how this statement LOGICALLY follows.
What I hoped to establish was that it is logical to think "From the fact that there is order it follows that there is Reasoning," followed by "That Reasoning capacity must belong to Existence." Not sure whether I've done that, though.


If there is "reason" then what is our reason for having an intellegence but with the capacity of contemplating our own existence?

The only logical answer here could be something like "To contemplate the fact that we can contemplate." I do not see how you can LOGICALLY point to the necessity of a higher being from here. As you said before, faith cannot be proven.

Now, there is a very interesting ***a Theory, which MIGHT suggests that the universe itself is not inanimate. The reason I say "might" is beacause it actually only discusses this planet.


To remove all doubt, I am a person of faith. Ridiculous as it may be, I try to use logic as some sort of consollation for my faith. I actually do take a leap, and ascribe divinity to the Reasoning. However, I do not, and WOULD NOT use it in an argument. I do not see any logic to any of the major denominations, and would not list here my beliefs for fear of them being ridiculed (I think it somewhat resonates with what other people have being saying here).

So to answer your question: you both do and do not make sense from my point of view.

***Oops, just saw replies below yours. Must read them now.***

I awnsered your question, its just an awnser you dont want to hear.


i understand where you are coming from. I remember when i asked my self the same question in my head when i was an athiest.(remember, this is all from my POV, so no offence if i miswrote the sentence in an offensive way:) )

cause when u see things the way you do, u believe that "the universe" came before intelligence , so from your POV, if there was no consciecness , there would still be existence.... even though there would be nothing to confirm it. I know exactly what u mean. That is why it seems that i did not awnser your question ...WHY?

but for me to really explain my side of the story it would take way to long and it would be frustrating to read for u.





:cool:

OK, the word g-a-y-a theory somehow comes up as ***. That's why I kept editing.

but that is the one question that cannot be awnsered at the moment. Cause what is the orgin of existence?
I believe in God, but the one question i cannot have awnsered in this "probationary state " (hear on earth) is where did God come from... from my POV, he is the beginning, but how did he emerge?

so from both our perspectives, we cannot yet awnser the question........... WHY?

Thats just it, there is no beginning, there will be no end, if you can picture it, time is only on eath....

Thats just it, there is no beginning, there will be no end, if you can picture it, time is only on eath....

So you're saying that if we humans were to star exploring space, the time we are out in deep space would have no meaning. Or are you saying that time is just a concept we humans have thought up and that really there is no time.

I hope you meant the second one. :D

is a "relationship" we with have with a specific thing - namely the sun.

We age ourselves by saying "I am X number of revolutions around the sun." But when you are not revolving around the sun what are you?

Because time is only a relationship to a specific motion - it's relative. It depends entirely on WHERE you are.

Same thing with space. It too is a relationship.

Together these ideas form the basis of general relativity.

Thank you Albert!:D

hey, where can i read the complete theory of relativity?

on line, i don't need a smart-as_s answear like "in the library"

Ok who is spreading the novel post bug???

if any of yall know were that quote is from, my subject, then ur a funny kid. i cant believe my post has gotten this much response. whats funny is that you wouldnt even beable to tell what mine was about when you look at all the responses its gotten. mine wasnt even that good, but all of yall are either really smart, or youve read sophies world too many times. either way, go outside, play some basketball. stop staying on your computer and playinc cs and looking at porn. get out in the world. find a gf, bf, dont really care. if u reply to this and say ur not a nerd, then.. u probably are. sorry. ur all nerds

Nerds are... those whom can hack into anywthing and fix anything without readinga bout it.. That is not me thank you

You're not a nerd ofcourse. You use "yall". Common you loser, I think you're the only one here looking at porn and playin cs. You my friend should go f_ck your self, what am i saying you probably are right now anyways.

The first time I read your post, I was very upset because you said "We're still beating around the same bush", and that would mean the argument has outlived itself, and I don't want this thread to die out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lucky for me, I read your post again (about 5 times), in order to fully comprehend what you're saying (which is a very good thing), and have realized that we might be beating around different bushes.

1. You say "I think there's an assumption that order cannot exist in it's own right - that it must be created and there must be a reasoning behind it."

Were it an assumption, there would be no place for my argument. Please let me show you how I am NOT leading you towards a divine creator of Order.

You say "Existence necessitates order." We are not sure that it does, as we don't know if there are some other Exitences that might be chaotic. Fortunately, that does not matter to us, as we only exist in this Existence, and are discussing this Existence. Our Existence necessitates, and does have order.

Back to the chicken. Order is "comprehendable." I think you have already agreed with me before that if there is no Reason, there can be no order. Just in case you did not, I will reiterate my argument here.

Order is an arragement (I think you confirmed that as well). But how can order be arranged without some sort of Reason? Lets say a person arranging the desk is a TOTAL ****** - no reasoning capacity AT ALL, not even that of a bacteria. He would not be able to arrange the papers in order - because the very concept of "order" means nothing to him. He cannot comprehend that papers have to be found, let alone envision an "order" in which they could be found. Sheer reason (without any physical or mythical attributes) is necessary to cause order. Agree with me so far?

If Existence was "without reason" - purely in the sense "reason" is used to describe mental capacity (I am trying to be very clear here. Do NOT read into this "reason for being"), it could not "be arranged." As a ****** cannot arrange anything, or comprehend an arrangement because he cannot tell order from chaos.

2. Therefore, Reason is a characteristic of Existence. Existence itself has a Reasoning capacity.

NEOsporin has lead you astray by keeping bringing God into this. God has nothing to do with it. Neither do we, as a species who can comprehend Existence's Reason. Because a few billion years we were not here yet, and Existence already existed, and was ordered.


He (NEOsporin) was saying something like God came and arranged the Existence in order, or began the existence, or something, to which you responded:
"But the Universe is EVERYTHING. And as such there is no before and there can be no after EVERYTHING and nothing CONTAINS it."
I AGREE WITH YOU!!!!!!!! (insert scream here!) There is no way to make a scientific assumption that there is something outside the Universe (parallel universes are irrelevant), or that something posessive of a reasoning capacity ordered our universe before it began (while it was outside of existence, which began when this universe began existing).

That means that "Something posessive of a reasoning capacity began Existence" DOES NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW (NEOsporin, my dear, please pay attention to this!!). But somehow Existence's Reasoning Capacity emerged, as Existence IS ordered now.

Do you see what I'm saying? You're right, there is no evidence that somebody came and arranged a big messy desk in the sky!!!!!!!!!!
Somehow Existence has done it to itself - it arranged itself in an ordered way, therefore (see 1), it is possessive of a reasoning capacity.

Please, please, if you have any spare time at all (I don't know how busy you are), please read this book by Strugatsky. I assure you it is VERY interesting, and it addresses my point in a MUCH better way.

P.S. I'm now going to make "Sorry this is so long" my signature.:)

The f***ing controls keep editing my words.

****** means r-e-t-a-r-d

If u want to blunt about this YANKA, i dont need to read your book, if you know the gospel at all you know that you will never understand it the way you are going! You r completly shut out from the lords presence and i know why! but if i told u , you would not understand at ALL. (Not now at least )



PS i know my science very well by the way. That was my favorite subject in high school. strait A's. Mathmatics....all A's. I am a science freak, but will never compare to the Lord. Wine all u want, you dont know anything about the gospel.:) :) :) :) :) :) :eek: :eek: :) :eek: :)

Originally posted by NEOsporin
If u want to blunt about this YANKA, i dont need to read your book, if you know the gospel at all you know that you will never understand it the way you are going! You r completly shut out from the lords presence and i know why! but if i told u , you would not understand at ALL. (Not now at least )


PS i know my science very well by the way. That was my favorite subject in high school. strait A's. Mathmatics....all A's. I am a science freak, but will never compare to the Lord. Wine all u want, you dont know anything about the gospel.

What have I done to alienate you? :confused:
I was trying to build a logical argument. You were confusing it by bringing in "the lord". To paraphrase you, faith is not logical, and cannot be proven.

Roark is an atheist. If my argument was based on faith, it would be irrelevant to him. I want to make a relevant argument.

I do not anywhere imply that you do not know science. Why are you so upset??? :confused:


The Protector
For the Theory of Relativity - I don't know where it would be online. Try searching for it on Google, but it will probably end up being in an online library.

YANKA, the reason why i seemed upset is because you wrote your previous article like you were tired of what me and roark had to say and u were trying to put us in our place. Reading sombodies opinion makes it a lot harder to understand what they r really trying to say , if i was talking to u verbaly , then i would know for sure how you were saying something. So i apologise for MISREADING your message. Im sorry.:(

Its just gets us knowhere for a deeply religous person and somebody of opposite stature to talk about the orgin of existence... i know that u know what i mean. So as for me, and conversating w/you and roark....lets just talk strictly matrix and other hobbies in which we can all relate. It makes thing a whole lot easier:)

Damn.

I leave for a few days, and look how quickly this conversation expands!!!
cool!!! =)

okay....
i apologise in advance in anticipation of the length of this post.

And I'm trying hard to catch up.

To reply to things in the 1st page:

*******************************
dj_mtrx - No you are not crazy.
That theory is consistent with many things, such as the Buddhist/Hindu great cycle of life, The Multiversal theory, the "Big bang" then "Big crunch" proposed by Hawking, and Andre Linde's (I thought of it first though!) White holes theory.

I propose: (as a suggestion for you to think about, not as an absolute truth)
There is no beginning....
There is no end....
Because there is only *now*. There is a constant now, totally disconnected from all dimensions (including backward/forward in time, past and future).

Memory is a lie, because the past does not exist if someone does not remember it. What you hold to be true is what *was* once in the past.

If the past does not exist, then there is no truth.

Yes, indeed, how Orwellian of me =).

*******************************

yanka: I apologise profusely for my error.

*kowtows* (once, twice, three times).

I just assumed, (you know, net and all) and i should have known better..... (girls are *always* smarter, arent they? lol!)

Shinto, really?
This is because of an appreciation of Japanese culture?
I repect that, but:
Shinto, as I see it, is a corruption of Taoism, from which it is derived. IMHO, I see no truth in Shinto, merely a desire to worship a *something*, which is not a bad thing in itself, but..... lamentable.

To answer your question concerning Zen requires a forum of our own and a lifetime of study, not a single post. =)

A great Chinese Shi (knight/scholar) on his death bed was once asked: "What would you do if you had second life?"
He replied: "I would spend one life as I have, learning all Earthly things. Then I would like to spend all that I had left in silent contemplation of the Way (Tao)"
Best I can translate "Tao" is the "Way and Virtue of things"
And so it is with Zen.

Skepticsim? Perhaps I have a different definition of Skepticsim than you, because your question makes no sense to me (If i answered it the way i interpreted it the the answer would be a resounding: Hell no!). Could I ask for your definition of the term?

*******************************

John-Galt:
I see beauty in your ability to see all things as being derived from god. (no sarcasm)

However, I would like to pick a bone with two of your comments:

"We all know the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees no matter how we feel about it."

I was waiting for someone to drop that EXACT comment!!!

Here goes:
In two dimensional (flat) space, this would be true. Because we are in three dimensions we can imagine this space. Can you imagine four dimensional space? No. But let me put this to you.

Imagine a Globe (This is a three dimensional object - a sphere). Draw a line from the north pole to the equator. Turn left 90 degrees. Go along the equator the same distance you have just travelled to get there from the north pole. turn left 90 degrees (you are now facing the north pole) Go the same distance again. Where are you now?
On the north pole. You have travelled three distnaces of equal length, drawing a shape with three angles.
By definition, this shape is a triangle.

The sum of the angles of the triangle you have just drawn out on a sphere is 90+90+90 = 270 degrees.
Three dimensions. We live in it. This is true for us, too!

Thus:
Your "truth" is not true from another perspective, even for something as simple as that.



"Finally, I believe it is very dangerous, or at least undersirable, to make statements like "Truth is a lie" unless you are just being funny. If that were true, then what are we all doing here in the first place, what possible meaning can our words have, if:

Truth (the absence of falsity) = Lie (falsity) "

That definition is even worse than "absolute truth".
Absence of one is not proof of the existence of the other.

But if you meant it in the way that I could interpret it to mean: then my hat off to you.
Indeed, any "truth" that we could seek and know to be true would be a recursive definition of the concept.
This is a realization reached more than 8000 years ago by Taoists. It is symbolised by the Yin/Yang, a symbol that i think has been totally misinterpreted by the West to mean approximating somethinglike "opposites".

Yang: life, light, chaotic/living energy, the active force, the masculine, the sun. Literally "the bright"
Yin: non-life, darkness, latent/potential energy, the sleeping force, the feminine, shadow. Literally "the dark side of the hill".
Each defines the other.

What is Yin?
Yin is that which is not Yang.
What is Yang?
Yang is that which is not Yin.

Thus:
Truth (the absence of falsity) = Lie (falsity)

A recursive definition.


*******************************


Roark:
"Existence exists independantly from our consciousness. Your mind/brain/mental process cannot change the laws of nature and reality. "

That's just the thing.
Existence is in question without a mind. Being dead is no different to being alive. It is *perception* that defines 'real'.

Try to wrap your mind about this:
If I went out on the street and got hit by a car, people would experience that that happened. Thus, it is real.

If my friends and family did not know i was dead at that exact point in time (and they would not - for how would they know immediately)
To them, there is no different. Really, I am dead, but to them I am still alive.

To use scientific terms:
(I'll try my best to use layman's terms, but i can't illustrate if i don't at least use *some* quantum mechanical terms.)

Because of my status outlined above, whether I am alive or dead is really a quantum superposition of states: I am both dead and alive at the same time. This is totally true even for when I am alive, and they are not directly "experiencing" me.

Until my witnesses "see" me get hit (there is a time delay until the light from the event of myself getting hit and the light travelling to the eyes of the observer and realising that I am dead) I am alive to them.

By them seeing me, my state of superposition immedately collapses. Through a concious mind experiencing (and thus believing) my death does my death become "true" for them.

My family would believe I am alive until someone told them (collapsing the state of superposition). Thus, truth is subjective.

Page 2:
yanka:
*ouch*!!

Harsh, but perhaps justified. =)
I think I'm falling in love! hahaha

Hawking is *indeed* very humble.
In a recent lecture he gave, he expressed his view that there are some thing that "we may never know" given the true complexity of our universe.
This was in reply to a question asked about what his ideas were concerning the fact the relativity cannot be mathematically reconcilled with quantum theory at plank distances. (Ask about specific concepts and terms if you have no idea what im talking about - I apologise!)

Yanka can certianly take care of her own formidable self in this debate! There's not need for me to comment. I stare flabbergasted at the sheer order of openmindedness behind every word she writes.

I would like to expand a few things:

1. Space-time is 10 dimensional (if not more), according to string, superstring, DSL and M theory.

2. The "universe" for which we can model and interpret using the scientific method extends only to a order of magnitude known as planck dimensions - the smallest space and time that we can work with as defined by our current theory....
Science (or Relativistic Cosmology, Hawking's field) makes no claim on knowledge about anything smaller or before this, because it is impossible using our current models.

According to Orwell (please read Nineteen-eighty-four by George Orwell, the greatest socio-poltical commentary novel of the 20th century.), 2 + 2 = 5. If you *have* read it, you would believe me when i say i am not alone. Orwell too proves that it is your perception that makes the contention that 2+2=4, or 2+2=5, true or false.

There is a spoon is you know there is a spoon.
There is no spoon if you know there is no spoon so.

Reality is subject to the mind.

******************************

NEOsporin: I am interested to know why there must be a higher being for order to exist.

In chemistry, if you mix chemical A with chemical B, you never actually get chemical C. The mixture is in a constant state of flux, changing from chemical A and B into chemical C.

You would be hard pressed to find order in that. According to science, and Thermodynamics, entropy (chaos, or the absence of order) ONLY increases.
If anyone wants know more about Thermodynamics, just ask, as always. =)

But I agree: without intelligence, nothing exists.
With no observation, nothing is observed.

However, this is radically different to saying that without higher intellgence, no order can exist. I can find beauty in the fact that John_Galt finds the hand of the divine in everything. This is his expression of his reverence at the perfection, the "just so-ness" of things.

However, you mean that order cannot exist without god. I find issue with that.
This implies that "something" is the arbiter of all causality in the universe. I leave my mind open: for you to explain.

*************************

Roark:
Touche. Touche indeed.

"There cannot be SOMETHING before there was ANYTHING. Believing there can be is the very essence of mysticism." Beautifully put.

*************************

The Genius:
That is called Linde Thoery (though I would prefer it to be renamed after myself, but i'm not fussy) :)

hahaha

The "depends on what is reality" bit is the stuff I'm trying to explain. =)

Sorry about doubling up on your point about extra dimensional curvature. I didn't read the second page until now.

Do you read university level physics?

************************

The ability to understand is indeed a great force.
The points have already all been well made in the "Why are we here debate", so i won't bother to comment.

yanka's subjective order is exactly my point: order is in the mind.
There is naught that exists independednt of the mind. ALL is subjective.

Our minds can indeed alter "nature", Roark, and i think you understand this viewpoint partway.
How we "see" something *is* how it exists. The nature of the stapler therefore cannot be absolute because your perception and my perception of what is cannot agree.

"If the nature of things were subject to whim, or an indiviuals "purpose" or perspective - existence could not exist."

I wish to humbly assert that the Nature of things are sujective, and therefore existence does not exist - a line of logic I think you an accept, because you have arrived on the doorstep of its enlightenment by your own derivation.


***********************


In the Orient, I know for sure that there is no word for "be". (Chinese, Japanese and Korean) As in, the state of existence that causes things to "be". I will define this as 'that objective state that lends something material existence'.

Shakespeare once lamented: "To be, or not to be. That is the question."
That is a Western question. To question the objective state of 'being' or 'existing' is built on the premise that there IS such thing as objective existence.

To illustrate, the best Chinese translation of this monologue goes something like
"Whether I live or whether I die. That is the question."

There is no question of "why" something is in existence, or if it is not. That is because we understand that things exist and do not exist at the same time. It's the duality of Yin/Yang, which I have explained a part of previously, and will also explain in more detail if someone asks.

Thus, as a philosophical tenet, there is no "nature" of things, which we define differently as the Tao, but something rather like yanka's subjective being of things: "Wu xing, wu ming" << no life/existence, no mind/thought/understanding/perception (sorry, but 'Ming' is a hard word to translate).

But I do apoligise for writing such long essays.

Sorry, still going!
page 3:

NEO63:

You break my heart. "advanced science class"? I will endeavour to explain.

1.
"How could we not be too close, but yet too far away from the sun. how could the planets be in the perfect place, so they wouldn't collide?"


If the we were too close or too far away from the sun, we would not exist because the earth is too hot or cold. If the planets were not in these "perfect" places (i assure you, solar orbits are far for perfect) then we would not exist because they would pull us out of orbit and into the problem above.
It is only because out of the entire, random, >>>infintely<<< big universe there is one place (possibly more) where there just happened to be a place where the orbits of planets are stable and there was a planet in the right orbital range for life that you are even able to be here to ask that question in the first place...

Think about it.

Alternative to 1.
There is yet another argument. Just imagine (remember: imagine, as an example) aliens that lived on Jupiter. They would float about the Jovian clouds like birds, never stopping their infinte gliding existence, breathing in hydrogen and helium.
They would ask the question: why is it that we live on a place that has so much clouds so that we can fly? if there wasn't an atmosphere, we would fall and die.
Why is there such a perfect combination of hydrogen and helium here for us to breathe? If it was in a differnt mixture, or had nitrogen or oxygen in it, we couldn't breathe and would die.
These aliens then >mistakenly< conclude that their existence is due to some divine being that placed them there.

This Earth is not desgined for you.
You are designed for this Earth.

2.
"that brings up another thing. the moon. they say that a very big asteroid collided with the earth which sent a chunk of the earth into space, orbiting arond the earth. now if that is true why is the moon spherical and not just any ol shape."

Gravity. For something that large to collide with earth, molten crust and iron must have been thrown into space. A liquid object maintains a spherical shape in zero gravity (Watch astronauts playing with water droplets in free fall). The erraticallity of this sphere (how not round it is) varies inversely with its surface tension.
The surface tension of molten iron/rock increases as it cools, and therefore becomes more round as it cools under the influcence of gravity, which acts as a point mass to attract all parts of the proto-moon equally.

To the point: a round moon.

3.
Apes and us evolved from a common ancestor. It's called DIVERGENT evolution.
Which is why I question what sort of advanced science class you are in.

**************************

Roark:
A fine point. I bow to your intelligence. =) (no sarcasm)

To rebutt:

Our definition:
"ORDER = A condition of logical or comprehensible arrangement among the separate elements of a group. "

Order exists depending on which "group" you group things in.
Thermodynaics state that entropy (how 'arranged' these things are) can only increase.

Order only seems to increase if you do not look at the larger picture (picking the most ordered part sucessively from the larger group).

This is an error creationists make when they state that evolution violates the 2nd law. For a system (in this case, and organism) to build order and become more complex inside itself, it has to produce basic building blocks from materials consumed. This is breaking down of order into chaos. It radiates heat form it body (order into chaos), it leaves droppings (a less concentrated energy source, a lower, less entropic energy)>(order into chaos). To evolve, it must diversify (order into chaos).

This proves that at no point is there order.


I am still intruiged however: How is existence the function that order serves?
I think yanka would say that order serves conciousness, for that would be the crux of her idea of "subjective order".

And I can reconcile your theory with this. Conciousness *is* existence.
My point. =)

***********************

NEOsporin:
"obviously u know that there has to be reasoning behind "order"."?

It's not obvious to me. Please explain.

I see your point paralelling mine, though. (though i can't really tell for sure)

Roark:
"The identity of objects is not an illusion."
Yes indeed it is. The existence of objects, as I have explained, (I'm sorry) is subjective, and therefore and illusion.

"Existence necessitates order."
Ditto. True, but only if you mean in the sense that conciousness necessitates order, otherwise chaos would reign unchecked.

Thus,
"Nature of things = Identity"
is true if you mean that things are identified by what identity we attach to them, not some absolute.

********************************

Drop me a line on email if you want expansion on anything i've just said.

I can explain the matter-is-energy thing to you anyone who still cares (if that's the 'water' thing you are talking about)...
But the stuff about water confuses me.... what concept is that trying to illustrate?
Could the original poster elborate??

"Existence itself has a Reasoning capacity. "
That reasoning, i contend, is your perception of it!!! =)

Something has to experience existence to put it into order. Experience stems from perception. Perception stems from conciousness.....


"I think, therefore i am"

I think -> therefore I am aware -> therefore i can experience -> therefore i am led to believe -> therfore i can make order -> therfore existence exists.

To condense:
I think -> therefore existence exists.

All is perception.

************************************

The Protector:
which "relativity" do you want explained?
Special, or General?
They're really VERY different, you know....

or would you like to know about DSL theory?
As in "doubly special relativity", which i believe will soon replace relativity and become the foundation of the new physics of the 21st century...

(hahaha!!! The last comment makes me sound like Morpheus - "i believe")

RELATIVITY::
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
this site is very technical, but it explains both This is a good site, if you have trouble understanding space-time diagrams, drop me an email.

SPECIAL::
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Special_relativity.html
More specific, explores a little history and perhaps a bit easier to understand. I like the classical formulations and the way they have stated postulates. =)

GENERAL::
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/General_relativity.html
As above, but for general relativity.

You are by every measure a subjectivist. To be clear - you believe that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, indeterminant realm which can be made, unmade, and altered in whole or in part by the consciousness of the perceiver.

My beliefs are antithetical to yours. That reality exists OUTSIDE our minds - that our mind or mental process cannot change or make the laws of nature or erase facts.

Again, I'd challenge you to take your Kantian beliefs out of the message boards and experiment with them in the middle of a busy street.

Objective realty - the realm that cannot be re-made by your mental process will indeed win.

You offer an example of being struck by a car and having a family unaware of your death - thus rendering you BOTH dead and alive based on a "perspective" - the perspective of your unaware family.

I'm sorry. I find this absurd.

But we both know that in objective reality - YOU ARE DEAD. YOU cannot act in contradiction to this FACT and order a pizza. (I like pizza) Or - place a call to your unknowing family to inform them of your death.

Your family - who thinks you are still alive simply have a gap in knowledge that allows the belief that you are alive to exist. You can say that "to them - you are still alive - thus dead in physical world - but alive in their minds".

BUT, and I cannot stress this enough - they cannot manifest that gap in knowledge (belief that your are alive) into a conversation with you. Simply BELIEVING you are alive will not make the physical realty such - because - in objective reality - YOU ARE DEAD.

The only difference is between those who KNOW you are dead - and those who don't. But those who DON"T know you're dead cannot behave with YOU as if you are alive anymore than the people who know you're dead could. So belief - and perception DOES NOT CHANGE the reality - that you are dead.

Gaps in knowledge are not to be mistaken for evidence of the "subjectivity" of reality. They are simply gaps in knowledge which we must strive to fill to completely understand reality.

Because you hold what I consider to be an irrational view -subjectivity - I'm afraid there isn't much we're going to agree on - except maybe the Matrix - yeah??

:cool:


ps - yanka - "the beat around the bush" comment was not a slam - it was probably a poorly communicated idea that we were BOTH avoiding the central, and, by all measures of today - unanswerable questions of "WHY". ;)

Is it just me or do people latly seems to have alo to say about this subject... or is it they just ramble on and on?

It's just a constant disscussion that's going on to try and prove the opposoite wrong :).

Starseeker:

Point 1:
Do you read university level physics?
Nope, as I'm only 13 :D:D:D

Point 2:
But the stuff about water confuses me.... what concept is that trying to illustrate?
Could the original poster elborate??
Sorry, but I can't remember all the stuff that was said on the programme before. But there is something about the water being able to hold a "time of place" memory or somthing. I'm not sure now on what it is.

The theory of relativity is not exactly hard, as I just saw the formula, and worked it out. :)
Energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared.
So basically it mean how much energy a mass can hold at the speed it's going. (Well, sort of). This can be explained in alot more detail. And the special theory of relativity is easy also as it's just the nearer to the speed of light you are travelling, the slower time seems to be. It also applies to just travelling in the car, because it seems to you as if seconds are going slower while you're running than when you're standing still and looking at a particular object. The way I've put it may be hard to understand but I know what I'm talking about. :)

Yanka:
no reasoning capacity AT ALL, not even that of a bacteria.
That's incorrect, it's bacterium ;):p

Edited for typos

Roark: I respect your view, and i see your point.
But i think you miss mine.

At no point do i contend that causailty is violated -> something that has happened, happens.

But I wish to illustrate that all reality stems from our experience of such, and that therfore, there is no 'true' thing as an objective reality.

For me to call my parents after i have died would require me to *not* have experienced my own death. By both my definition and your, such a thing in impossible.

Does that make sense, or are you still horrified of my viewpoint?

***********************************

The Genuis:
Hahaha! Thanks, but I didnt need relativity explained: I'm reading adv. comp-sci. and adv. physics @ uni with intention of getting a doctorate in the field. =)

But good on you~! =)

"It's just a constant disscussion that's going on to try and prove the opposite wrong"

Are we really trying to prove each other wrong?

I would say that we each draw each other closer to each other's point of view, filling in gaps of logic by process of debate...
We're not trying to convince someone of our immutable point of view, but to meet somewhere in the middle, our thoughts and minds enriched by the experience. =)

I'm dissaopinted my on-the-run (excuse the pun) analogy of my hypotheical death seems so hard to understand.

For simplcity, love of tradition and appreication of philosopical beauty, i have to resort to asking all the Zen parable:

"If a tree falls over in the forest, and there is no-one there to hear it, does the tree fall??"

******

Hell yea Matrix is cool...
hahaha But Star Wars is on T.V. now, so i have my priorities... =)
Luke just found out who is father was.... omg~!~!~! hahaha bye!

The reason I explained relativity is 'cause I just wanted to explain it for those who don't understand. (And for whoever asked the question of reading about relativity. ;) )

I would say that we each draw each other closer to each other's point of view, filling in gaps of logic by process of debate...

Yes, I agree, but what I meant by proving each other wrong was that we're agreeing until we can possible persuade each other to believe (or a least see from another's view), what we're talking about. :)
I suppose I just used it as an expression, and not actually what it meant. :)