Expanding universe?

[Deleted member 619]

Maybe later I'll try and build something out of the bits of knowledge to see over the horizon a bit better.

The shoulders of giants making a cracking raft! :lol:

 

[Thomas Doubting]

The Universe is "slave" to logical absolutes.. 1=1 and won't be 2 unless another 1 gets added to the 1, then 1+1=2 which also always stands.
But it is not "slave" to flawed logic and human intuition and common sense often mislabeled as logic.
Does that make any sense?
Now i have to add my own curiosity to the equation too.. Why are you asking such things? This is basic logic as you yourself stated and asking such things doesn't really make much sense to me either.
Do you have something specific on your mind.. some point you are trying to prove after establishing that logic is part of the universe?

Dear Thomas Doubting,

I'm afraid if Logic doesn't hold God will come back to life and break my arm for cheating on him.

Without foundations, what firm progress can be made towards the good and just society?

What you have said (sentence 1 & 2) make sense, but I have little confidence in it if absolutely no one believes it. I am not a Nietzschean superman who can believe in the power of his own logical brain to the exclusion of all others. I need to confirm my findings with others.

Cpl Ferro

Logic and reason is surfacing more and more through education and science and secularism. People are trying to demolish the old foundations which were preventing the "good and just society" to establish itself, reason and humanity to flourish unhampered by ancient inhumane superstitious restraints.
If i were unsure about the existence of A god, or some gods, or a specific God, i would rely on the fact that omnipotent and omniscient, allegedly ultimately benevolent beings, wouldn't resort to ancient books and brain washed fuckwits to spread the word of their existence and that they would make me know and understand what is right and what they want me to do instead of again.. resorting to some old book(s) full of crap.
In short, don't give yourself a hard time?
Also atheists should be glad that we can openly come out of the closet as "infidels" in most countries, without being isolated, exorcised, exiled or even murdered merely because we don't share their belief(s).. We can't expect the world to put religions where they belong (in museums and history books if you ask me) right away, but i am glad to live in a time where something like that became likely to happen sooner or later.

With that being said.. uhm.. may i ask you.. what does that have to do with the expanding universe and logical absolutes? :lol:

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

The world perishes for lack of foundations, and I perish along with it. I am sputtering and drowning amidst a churning grey sea littered with the flotsam of my former convictions. And I seize upon a few pieces to form a raft. One is called A=A, the other is called God Does Not Exist. I lash them together and haul myself up from the drink, momentarily safe.

Foundations, man, foundations.

If you say my question is meaningless, that's the same as answering it in the negative, is it not? If A=A cannot be violated on pain of meaninglessness, then A=A holds forever, everywhere.

Is there a reason why you chose to ignore my questions?

Let me show you how futile your dodging has been and say this: I agree with you that "the universe is necessarily logical."

Now what do you say? What is your point?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Dear Master_Ghost_Knight,

If I establish through logic that an infinite, personal God does not exist, how is that not establishing a truth about the nature of reality? "Reality cannot contain X".

On Logic, we use Logic to determine that Logic is sound, and we use it because the alternative is illogical (madness).

Cpl Ferro

I would like you to notice the fact that you had to specifie "infinite" and "personal" for the argument to make sense, this are ideas someone constructed about God and you just have knocked it down those ideas of God to your satifaction. Experience would tell you that those ideas are not likely to have real counter parts, and despite your contentions there is noting illogical about a real infinite personal God, the gap between pure logic and reality can never be bridged, the best you could do is to say that such a version of God would requier a completly diffrent version of reality than the version we actually see. But then again you had to probe what is out there to make the argument work.

 

[valerytozer]

If god is real may "it" shut down this site (NOW), NOPE, SEE! god is not real, deal with it, Told you so... :lol: Anyways What about my video E=mC2?

 

[Thomas Doubting]

If god is real may "it" shut down this site (NOW), NOPE, SEE! god is not real, deal with it, Told you so... :lol: Anyways What about my video E=mC2?

1) Neither Einstein nor the alien dude talk about leaving our universe and "hitting empty space" or entering some other universe, they merely talk about covering huge distance within short time.
2) k-pax is a movie.. a work of fiction, do i need say more?
3) i already told you.. like others, that according to the current mainstream understanding of spacetime, you can not, i repeat, NOT.. leave the universe, due to the curvage of spacetime, you would be looping around, even if you against all that is known (currently) could accelerate a vehicle to travel faster than light or in short, it really does not matter how fast you would go, you're trapped here :twisted:
4) watch the short vid extracted from "through the wormhole" right before your e=mc,² vid.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

If god is real may "it" shut down this site (NOW), NOPE, SEE! god is not real, deal with it, Told you so... :lol:

you had to probe what is out there to make the argument work

It is inexcapable.

Anyways What about my video E=mC2?

You shouldn't get your science from the movies, film directors know as much about science as my cat.
The thing about not being able to travel faster than the speed of light is not a problem about mass, altough mass would prevent it from getting closer, the limitation comes from a property of space and time itself. The recent scientific paper about an measured particle going faster than the speed of light is controversial becuase it describes something we taught was a physical impossibility.

 

[valerytozer]

Ok , My wondering thoughts are then,,,

Theory of Everything and The Multiverse

If that is the case then how would you get to the other Multiverse, this is what i don't understand, IF, there are other universe's, in a Multiverse, then how can you enter one? Wouldn't you have to travel faster then the speed of light ?


I can not remember where i saw it, but the depition of this is... you zoom out of our universe and there are many universe's that is called "Multiverse." ( for those that don't know).

 

[Thomas Doubting]

Ok , My wondering thoughts are then,,,

Theory of Everything and The Multiverse

If that is the case then how would you get to the other Multiverse, this is what i don't understand, IF, there are other universe's, in a Multiverse, then how can you enter one? Wouldn't you have to travel faster then the speed of light ?


I can not remember where i saw it, but the depition of this is... you zoom out of our universe and there are many universe's that is called "Multiverse." ( for those that don't know).

Fact is we live in the universe.. we can learn about it and we did learn a lot although not really much of what there is to know in the big picture, which is why we have to use logic and assumptions when it comes to many things (although scientists do a bit more than that using high end technology and weird math).
When it comes to the understanding of our spacetime, mainstream scientists state (believe) that it is impossible for us to leave our universe by conventional methods, meaning that we are "trapped" inside the universe because of the curvage of spacetime and we can't get out no matter in what direction we move or how fast we do it.

Mutliverse is not a fact, but lets assume it is.. some people think that black holes are a one way street to some other universe(s) but i will ignore that for now.
There is another theory that i gave some more thought (not really that much though), that our universe is being sucked in by another universe, based on the accelerated movement of galaxies and "cold and warm spots" observed in the "map of the cosmic microwave background radiation" etc. In that case, "traveling" between universes would happen through some sort of a bridge or portal between the universes, it is not like moving over the border between 2 countries, it would be more like.. getting sucked into the other universe by unimaginable forces or pushed through from our side. That would mean, whatever comes through gets disintegrated to less than atoms and we have no clue what happens on the other side or where it leads at all. Nothing is really known about that topic so all i can do is keep pulling things out of my butt, for instance.. There is a hole in our spacetime, a connection between 2 universes which "collided", formed a one way "street" from this universe to the other one for some reason.. might have to do with the condition or the movement of the other universe. But again, that is how i imagine it when i think about that, it has nothing to do with real science or facts though, (although some scientists who are researching it might agree that parts of what i say are halfway plausible).
According to my "argumentum ad rectal extractum" (aka what i pulled out of my ass), it wouldn't have anything to do with how fast you travel but where you go and how you do it.. if you manage to find the rift between the 2 universes and it is big enough for some sort of vehicle to go through, or at least some probe for a start.. it is very unlikely that it would stay in one piece. Now we could talk about energy shields which would keep it intact or whatever but i don't see a way how we would get some information back to our universe.. which would mean that there is no way for us to learn about it and it would be a waste of time and resources.
However that all is a gigantic leap into the imaginary.. it would take billions of years to get to the "edge" or "hole" even at the speed of light and you have to take into account the accelerated movement of the galaxies, the expansion of the universe etc.. Maybe the connection would break at some point etc.. Keep in mind that we still see no way to get even close to the speed of light and that we can be glad if we don't kill the whole species through human stupidity or get eradicated by natural means before we even manage to leave the solar system some day :roll:

__

Short version: I have no clue! :lol:

 

[CplFerro]

Without foundations, what firm progress can be made towards the good and just society?

What has any of that to do with logic?

What you have said (sentence 1 & 2) make sense, but I have little confidence in it if absolutely no one believes it.

Why? What people believe is of zero consequence in this regard. Logical absolutes are independent of belief.

Dear hackenslash,

If absolutely no one besides myself held the conviction that "Logical absolutes are independent of belief," I would fear for my sanity. I can only hold my breath and be submersed in the liquid of madness for so long, before I too would choose to inhale deeply of it.

Without accepting that A=A, we are at a deep disadvantage in rooting out illogicalities in our attempts at progress.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

With that being said.. uhm.. may i ask you.. what does that have to do with the expanding universe and logical absolutes? :lol:

Dear Thomas Doubting,

Without a grasp of logical absolutes, there is no 100% firm foundation for atheism (a 7 on the Dawkins scale), only the empirically based 6.99999999. I think that's important.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

The world perishes for lack of foundations, and I perish along with it. I am sputtering and drowning amidst a churning grey sea littered with the flotsam of my former convictions. And I seize upon a few pieces to form a raft. One is called A=A, the other is called God Does Not Exist. I lash them together and haul myself up from the drink, momentarily safe.

Foundations, man, foundations.

If you say my question is meaningless, that's the same as answering it in the negative, is it not? If A=A cannot be violated on pain of meaninglessness, then A=A holds forever, everywhere.

Is there a reason why you chose to ignore my questions?

Let me show you how futile your dodging has been and say this: I agree with you that "the universe is necessarily logical."

Now what do you say? What is your point?

Dear Gunboat Diplomat,

I have answered what I understood. That you agree the universe is necessarily logical is heartening. As I mention above, it provides a foundation for a 100% solid atheism, in terms of a personal God.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

I would like you to notice the fact that you had to specifie "infinite" and "personal" for the argument to make sense, this are ideas someone constructed about God and you just have knocked it down those ideas of God to your satifaction. Experience would tell you that those ideas are not likely to have real counter parts, and despite your contentions there is noting illogical about a real infinite personal God, the gap between pure logic and reality can never be bridged, the best you could do is to say that such a version of God would requier a completly diffrent version of reality than the version we actually see. But then again you had to probe what is out there to make the argument work.

Dear Master_Ghost_Knight,

If Logic is right, then you (boldface) are wrong. There is no conceivable universe in which the infinite can simultaneously be the personal.

A non-infinite God is not God. A non-personal God is not God. A finite, impersonal entity is not God. Anyone who tries to sell you otherwise has constructed an entity and chosen to call it "God" which has no relation to that which the religions of the world have to sell you.

To say I had to "probe what is out there to make the argument work" applies also to Decartes, who had to first use his senses to encounter a world that he then chose to doubt.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Thomas Doubting]

Why? What people believe is of zero consequence in this regard. Logical absolutes are independent of belief.

Dear hackenslash,

If absolutely no one besides myself held the conviction that "Logical absolutes are independent of belief," I would fear for my sanity. I can only hold my breath and be submersed in the liquid of madness for so long, before I too would choose to inhale deeply of it.

Without accepting that A=A, we are at a deep disadvantage in rooting out illogicalities in our attempts at progress.

Cpl Ferro

A could also be B though, without B being A

lets say A= water
B= liquid

A=B A -> B, B!=A
meaning that water is not the same as a liquid.
Water is a liquid, but not all liquids are water.

We have to be careful about what we consider to be logical absolutes, some people confuse intuition and common sense (and flawed logic) for logical absolutes. which is why discrepancies are so common and humans generally are stupid (infinitely stupid like Einstein used to say)

I think you said that it is logical that God doesn't exist.. i would have to disagree in that case.
I think that the common versions of God are far away from being logical, not only because of contradicting concepts and errors.. however if we some day find out that there is/was some sort of omnipotent, omniscient creator thingy pulling the cosmic strings and vomiting things into existence, i wouldn't say that it is illogical, not even that it is surprising.
Doesn't mean i have to believe it, much less that i have to pick one of the versions depicted in ancient ridiculous books.
But in that case i simply have to say "God's existence or non-existence doesn't have anything to do with logic in my book".
Atheism however is highly logical imo, to my knowledge there is nothing that is clearly and demonstrably pointing towards some god, much less to a specific god.. which is why aside from wishful thinking, imagination and ruthless indoctrination (brainwashing in my book) there is no reason to believe in God.
However i still i don't get your point about logic and the universe..
Can you go few steps back and explain us where exactly you see a problem?

 

[nasher168]

Without a grasp of logical absolutes, there is no 100% firm foundation for atheism (a 7 on the Dawkins scale), only the empirically based 6.99999999.

...which is the position most atheists (myself included) take. You can't disprove the existence of God and nor can I, because by definition God's existence would make it capable of breaking the laws of reality. But there is no positive evidence in favour and so no reason to believe it exists. It literally holds the same probability of existence as the Invisible Pink Unicorn. We ridicule that idea and rightly so. But for historical reasons, society irrationally holds God up to different standard of evidence.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Dear Master_Ghost_Knight,

If Logic is right, then you (boldface) are wrong. There is no conceivable universe in which the infinite can simultaneously be the personal.

A non-infinite God is not God. A non-personal God is not God. A finite, impersonal entity is not God. Anyone who tries to sell you otherwise has constructed an entity and chosen to call it "God" which has no relation to that which the religions of the world have to sell you.

To say I had to "probe what is out there to make the argument work" applies also to Decartes, who had to first use his senses to encounter a world that he then chose to doubt.

Cpl Ferro

Ok then I chalendge to actually prove your assertions about the none existance of a phisical god without invoking observations, and I will prove you that you either made an ilogical argument or you unillingly invoked some observable fenomena.

 

[CplFerro]

Dear Master_Ghost_Knight,

In order to prove a personal, infinite God does not exist, I invoke definitions of "personal" and "infinite". If this is somehow a violation of your rules I do not know, but there is no way to logic without invoking definitions. That does not make the logic somehow invalid or only equally valid to empirical observations.

"Infinite" means "without limits" or non-finite or unbounded. A personality indicates a limit. If one has a particular personality, one does not have its opposite, for example. So, an entity with a personality cannot be infinite, by definition. Nor can an infinite being have a personality. No observation will overturn this.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

However i still i don't get your point about logic and the universe..
Can you go few steps back and explain us where exactly you see a problem?

Dear Thomas Doubting,

See my response to Master_Ghost_Knight, above. Logic absolutely disproves an infinite, personal God. If one shows up, check yourself into the insane asylum, because you are hallucinating.

I am attempting to win consensus that the universe cannot violate A=A, a thing is itself and not not-itself. If a thing is defined as A, it cannot be subsequently defined as not-A. So, in a universe, in your example, water is a kind of liquid, and liquid is not a kind of water but a category water participates in. But, at the same time, liquid is not a kind of water and so on. I can't find a more solid basis for understanding anything than the simple truism of the universe being logical.

Logic is not my strong point, which may be why I worry about it. But it worries me when I can't find many people who understand that the universe is logical, or else both it and we are insane by definition.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Dear Master_Ghost_Knight,

In order to prove a personal, infinite God does not exist, I invoke definitions of "personal" and "infinite". If this is somehow a violation of your rules I do not know, but there is no way to logic without invoking definitions. That does not make the logic somehow invalid or only equally valid to empirical observations.

"Infinite" means "without limits" or non-finite or unbounded. A personality indicates a limit. If one has a particular personality, one does not have its opposite, for example. So, an entity with a personality cannot be infinite, by definition. Nor can an infinite being have a personality. No observation will overturn this.

Cpl Ferro

You haven't invoked any good definition of inifinite or personal, what does those properties mean exactly?
"Infinite" does not mean "without limits", in what aspect is it unbounded or noon-finite? How does a personality contradicts the state of being this yet undefined state of infinite?
And I would contest that if one has a particular personality that it can not have it's oposite, ever heard of split personality? Despite your face value evaluation of a personality state that acording to you is not supoused to be real, multiple personality disorder is still a real afliction. Now that you are faced with this wall, let me reiterate what I have already mention, it is not that the world is ilogical, you just happened to have the wrong idea of what is this thing we call personality.

I am attempting to win consensus that the universe cannot violate A=A

I have granted you that from the start, but what I am contesting is that nothing in reality can violate the laws of logic simply because they do not apply altogheter to state something about the nature of reality while in isolation, and not because reality has to be consistent.

 

[CplFerro]

You haven't invoked any good definition of inifinite or personal, what does those properties mean exactly?
"Infinite" does not mean "without limits", in what aspect is it unbounded or noon-finite? How does a personality contradicts the state of being this yet undefined state of infinite?
And I would contest that if one has a particular personality that it can not have it's oposite, ever heard of split personality? Despite your face value evaluation of a personality state that acording to you is not supoused to be real, multiple personality disorder is still a real afliction. Now that you are faced with this wall, let me reiterate what I have already mention, it is not that the world is ilogical, you just happened to have the wrong idea of what is this thing we call personality.

I am attempting to win consensus that the universe cannot violate A=A

I h
ave granted you that from the start, but what I am contesting is that nothing in reality can violate the laws of logic simply because they do not apply altogheter to state something about the nature of reality and not because reality has to be consistent.

Dear Master_Ghost_Knight,

I'm not sure what definitions of "infinite" and "personal" you would accept. If infinite doesn't mean without limits, what does infinite possibly mean? If personal doesn't mean possesses a personality, what does personal possibly mean?

"Split personality" is a single personality that has alternating features. A person with split personality has split personality and not the opposite of split personality. His personality is a definite thing and not anything else. That's finitude.

You lost me on your last point. If the universe is logical, fine, it's logical. It's illogical for it to be anything else, and so if it were, both it and we would be insane.

Cpl Ferro