14 Apr 2014, 7:28 pm
leafplant wrote:
This is probably my secvariable and fluctast post. I think finishing on 2222 would be quite neat. Logical or illogical?
Anyway, Universe
how about it is an endless sea of awareness without beginning or end within which everything conceivable and inconceivable can and does exist in whatever way, form, shape, state etc. etc. possible and also impossible and improbable and other ..
So our perceivable Universe is like a pimple in this big matrix and it has it's own Rules and stuff, because ..well, have you ever played with toys? You immediately start laying down rules of existence as soon as you set to create any type of Universe, and it seems probable that the laws of the Universe will be reflected in everything in it, so, we extrapolate upwards, as it were. So maybe the Universe is expanding and contracting at the same time. Why not? Just because we would find it difficult to get our minds around that concept, it doesn't mean that it can't exist. Why? Because.
Anyway, Universe
how about it is an endless sea of awareness without beginning or end within which everything conceivable and inconceivable can and does exist in whatever way, form, shape, state etc. etc. possible and also impossible and improbable and other ..
So our perceivable Universe is like a pimple in this big matrix and it has it's own Rules and stuff, because ..well, have you ever played with toys? You immediately start laying down rules of existence as soon as you set to create any type of Universe, and it seems probable that the laws of the Universe will be reflected in everything in it, so, we extrapolate upwards, as it were. So maybe the Universe is expanding and contracting at the same time. Why not? Just because we would find it difficult to get our minds around that concept, it doesn't mean that it can't exist. Why? Because.
oh, you just made me all weak at the knees 
I think mathematics needs a new number, a variable and fluctuating absolute 0
14 Apr 2014, 9:30 pm
15 Apr 2014, 9:09 am
slave wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Well I've been saying it for a number of years (as have many others) and now some physicists have come up with a mathematical proof that the universe could indeed have spontaneously formed from nothing. No gods required. We live in interesting times. 
Why is it significant that spontaneous formation does not require the presence of the divine? I don't understand the opposition. Isn't science human's attempt to explain the divine? I'm sure God doesn't mind us finding out some of his secrets. He's got lots more.
circular effing nonsense.....ridiculous
drives me insane
and yet you will never see it
So why does our mathematical system exclude the existence of the divine? We have developed a mathematical language to explain phenomenon, but that doesn't mean there isn't a greater power that we don't and can't understand.
15 Apr 2014, 10:12 am
Ann2011 wrote:
slave wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Well I've been saying it for a number of years (as have many others) and now some physicists have come up with a mathematical proof that the universe could indeed have spontaneously formed from nothing. No gods required. We live in interesting times.
Why is it significant that spontaneous formation does not require the presence of the divine? I don't understand the opposition. Isn't science human's attempt to explain the divine? I'm sure God doesn't mind us finding out some of his secrets. He's got lots more.
circular effing nonsense.....ridiculous
drives me insane
and yet you will never see it
So why does our mathematical system exclude the existence of the divine? We have developed a mathematical language to explain phenomenon, but that doesn't mean there isn't a greater power that we don't and can't understand.
I am pretty certain that it does not and I would go farther as to say it probably never will.
Kurt Godel, the famous mathematician mentioned earlier in this thread, was a theist himself who strangely enough suggested an ontological proof of God's existence. I always find it strange when people try to connect math and rationality with God, I think that it is where a lot of the confusion and anger comes in on both sides. Why does God have to be rational?
15 Apr 2014, 11:09 am
heavenlyabyss wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
slave wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Well I've been saying it for a number of years (as have many others) and now some physicists have come up with a mathematical proof that the universe could indeed have spontaneously formed from nothing. No gods required. We live in interesting times.
Why is it significant that spontaneous formation does not require the presence of the divine? I don't understand the opposition. Isn't science human's attempt to explain the divine? I'm sure God doesn't mind us finding out some of his secrets. He's got lots more.
circular effing nonsense.....ridiculous
drives me insane
and yet you will never see it
So why does our mathematical system exclude the existence of the divine? We have developed a mathematical language to explain phenomenon, but that doesn't mean there isn't a greater power that we don't and can't understand.
I am pretty certain that it does not and I would go farther as to say it probably never will.
Kurt Godel, the famous mathematician mentioned earlier in this thread, was a theist himself who strangely enough suggested an ontological proof of God's existence. I always find it strange when people try to connect math and rationality with God, I think that it is where a lot of the confusion and anger comes in on both sides. Why does God have to be rational?
The myth goes that Pythagoras threw Hippassus off the boat they were on for proving irrational numbers exist. Pythagoras felt such imperfection disgusted the GODs. Mathematicians like rationality and perfection.
I wonder if Pythagoras was an Aspie perfectionist
15 Apr 2014, 11:44 am
15 Apr 2014, 12:42 pm
15 Apr 2014, 2:32 pm
15 Apr 2014, 8:07 pm
16 Apr 2014, 11:44 am
16 Apr 2014, 12:00 pm
16 Apr 2014, 12:09 pm
16 Apr 2014, 12:14 pm
16 Apr 2014, 12:41 pm
Sherlock03 wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Sherlock03 wrote:
Strange to think we could invest so much time and money on theories when fellow humans die of starvation and disease every day.
Without study of pure science there would be no modern medicines, antibiotics, vaccinations, medical equipment or hospitals. Agriculture would also be harvesting much less of low yielding crops while pests ate the majority. So without investment of time in science there would be more people dying of starvation and disease every day.
This has little to do with the study in question. It is hard to justify a study when the end result is nothing.
How do you know that the end result is nothing?
It took 13-15 years from the discovery of penicillin (an accident, btw) until it could actually be used in practice.
It took more than 1500 years from the discovery of steam power until it could actually be used in practice.
It took more than 2300 years from the discovery of the helicopter until it could actually be used in practice.
It took more than 4000 years from the discovery of electricity until it could actually be used in practice.
Yet you seem confident that the end result of a study which is only 12 days old is "nothing".
16 Apr 2014, 1:01 pm
16 Apr 2014, 1:14 pm
GGPViper wrote:
Sherlock03 wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Sherlock03 wrote:
Strange to think we could invest so much time and money on theories when fellow humans die of starvation and disease every day.
Without study of pure science there would be no modern medicines, antibiotics, vaccinations, medical equipment or hospitals. Agriculture would also be harvesting much less of low yielding crops while pests ate the majority. So without investment of time in science there would be more people dying of starvation and disease every day.
This has little to do with the study in question. It is hard to justify a study when the end result is nothing.
How do you know that the end result is nothing?
It took 13-15 years from the discovery of penicillin (an accident, btw) until it could actually be used in practice.
It took more than 1500 years from the discovery of steam power until it could actually be used in practice.
It took more than 2300 years from the discovery of the helicopter until it could actually be used in practice.
It took more than 4000 years from the discovery of electricity until it could actually be used in practice.
Yet you seem confident that the end result of a study which is only 12 days old is "nothing".
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia’s 1st Miss Universe |
01 Apr 2024, 10:40 pm |
| A Physicist Claims the Universe Has No Dark Matter & Is 27B |
29 Mar 2024, 5:13 pm |
