|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 10/12/2003 : 13:26:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloodpet
If asked that, i'd say: "Ofcourse not."
and wait for the "Why not?" that'd come from them.
Have you thought up a good answer to that next question? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Arcanix_X
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2003 : 19:14:49 [Permalink]
|
| Dave, I would like to defend my two hypothesis by the means of one true statement that single handedly dismisses your statements. While you say that we cannot justify that anything existed before the big bang you forget of yet another infinity: the infinity of space (and of space you can't say it didn't exist before big bang). Think of this, infinity can only include infinity. Thus in a single nanosecond or a fraction of a second reduced to infinite there will be an infinite number of universes born by a big bang in the infinity of space. It would be quite awkward to deny this. To atack yet another philosophycal concept I will say that unicity dose not exist. Thus if god exists there is another infinity of gods just like himself. Remember though that I did not deny the possibility of god existing but mearly presented the possibility of him not existing. Back to unicity though. If in the infinity of space we admit to an infinite number of universes, then we admit to the possibility that at this very second, there is an ininite number of you on a infinite number of similar earths in an infinite number of galaxyes similar to our own to the very last atom, just as well as we allow the existence of an infinite number of galaxyes similar to our own, but in which this point . will appear on your monitor 2 microns above this one. Think this over before you post a reply, for this is trully impossible to deny. |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2003 : 20:11:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arcanix_X
Dave, ...While you say that we cannot justify that anything existed before the big bang you forget of yet another infinity: the infinity of space (and of space you can't say it didn't exist before big bang)
Hehe. I believe he just did. And, according to the best current understanding of the theory, he's correct. 
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2003 : 22:25:28 [Permalink]
|
Well, Paladin beat me to the wise-assed humorous response, dangit, so I guess I'll be the serious one...
Arcanix_X wrote:quote:
Dave, I would like to defend my two hypothesis by the means of one true statement that single handedly dismisses your statements. While you say that we cannot justify that anything existed before the big bang you forget of yet another infinity: the infinity of space (and of space you can't say it didn't exist before big bang).
Unfortunately for your "one true statement," when I said that we can't measure anything prior to the Big Bang, I meant it. That includes measuring what anyone means by the word 'space'. The Big Bang is hypothesized to have created what today's physicists call 'space-time', that four-dimensional world we typically live in. The singularity which began expanding at the moment of the Big Bang wasn't "in the middle of nowhere," for there wasn't anywhere for it to be in the middle of.quote:
Think of this, infinity can only include infinity.
Um, no. Infinity includes, for example, 2, a quite finite value.quote:
Thus in a single nanosecond or a fraction of a second reduced to infinite there will be an infinite number of universes born by a big bang in the infinity of space. It would be quite awkward to deny this.
Actually, it's quite awkward of you to say it. Any current hypothesis about multiple universes has them all inhabiting their own space, each individual set of space-time being created independently. The idea that two or more universes share "space" is short-sighted in the extreme, and contrary to what we can (and cannot) measure.quote:
To atack yet another philosophycal concept I will say that unicity dose not exist.
I think the term you're looking for is 'uniqueness'. 'Unicity' implies something else altogether.quote:
Thus if god exists there is another infinity of gods just like himself.
That is simply another human idea foisted upon what is, supposedly, a completely unknowable being. As soon as you use a construct of logic to propose a conclusion about what God is or has to be, you've lost the argument. Believers in God will simply call you "small-minded" or tell you that you're committing the sin of hubris. The idea that you know what this alleged being is or is not is nothing but arrogance. If I might offer a suggestion: knock yourself down a few pegs, and start over.quote:
Remember though that I did not deny the possibility of god existing but mearly presented the possibility of him not existing.
You wrote, "The answer is verry simple - there is no god." That's not "mearly" presenting the possibility, especially when you attempt to back up the statement with logic. "There is no god" is a statement which is impossible to support with logic, given that there are no sound premises upon which to build an argument. That's what I've been saying.quote:
Back to unicity though.
Must we go back there?quote:
If in the infinity of space we admit to an infinite number of universes, then we admit to the possibility that at this very second, there is an ininite number of you on a infinite number of similar earths in an infinite number of galaxyes similar to our own to the very last atom, just as well as we allow the existence of an infinite number of galaxyes similar to our own, but in which this point . will appear on your monitor 2 microns above this one. Think this over before you post a reply, for this is trully impossible to deny.
It's also impossible to verify.
The "Many Worlds Interpretation" of quantum mechanics, which is what you are (in effect) positing, is exactly as unnecessary and unsupportable and unverifiable as the idea that God exists. Unfortunately, it appears (to me, at least) that not a few physicists have latched onto the MWI as a substitute for God. There is at least one well-respected physicist who, in a Discover Magazine interview, said that he tries to behave well in the hopes that a larger percentage of his infinite doppelgangers will behave nicely, also. Since he has no evidence that any such near-copies of him even exist, his claims must either be a joke, or evidence of his insanity.
For you to posit the MWI as a real thing, with the infinite number of universes all within an infinite 'space', shows nothing more than that you've got much to learn.
Quickly, Grasshopper: try to snatch the infinite number of pebbles out of my infinite hands. Given an infinite number of universes (and given Heisenberg), you will never succeed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Arcanix_X
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2003 : 07:58:51 [Permalink]
|
Dave, I'm sorry for my grammar and vocabulary mistakes, but I am not a native speaker of the English language. As for the god dosen't exist stuff, I guess I got a bit carried away (although then we should also admit to the existance of pink dress wearing elephants dancing in enormous domes flying in space -kiding ). Apologies having been presented, back to controversy :).
You say that the presence of an infinite number of universes in space is impossible. I say it isn't. You know, matter released by the big bang created our small point of matter in space. But space is infinite. No matter what you say, unlike time you can't link its appearance to big bang. While time is absent without events to define it, space is not absent without matter. Nothingness dose not denny space. What do you mean when you say universe? Perhaps you did not understand my concept well enough. Let's define everithing that big bang created as a ball put in space, a ball with say a... 15 bilion light years diameter (an estimate, but not important for what i want to prove). What makes you so sure that there isn't another ball at a distance of - 10 at the power of 1.000.0000? can you deny it's existence? You can't, because if we take that in real life, then light from that ball will reach our ball when both balls will have been long gone. Try to see my point before you fight it again. Anyway, one thing i saw in your reasoning is that you consider infinity linear, just like the array of natural numberes - 1,2,3,4,5... It is an erronous way of defining it.Better define it as a 3d array - although space coordonates differ, they can still have the same value, thus universe one present at say(50,60,70) with value of definition 10.6 can be found in an exact replica at coordonates (19395483,3493899,3543547) with the value 10.6 . It is just a way to explain it and numbersa are random.
|
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2003 : 09:41:10 [Permalink]
|
I hope Dave and Arcanix will forgive me for nudging in on their debate, but I believe I may be able to shed a bit of light on the confusion.
The problem here appears to be a difference of opinion in what constitutes "space." Arcanix believes that space is something outside that which was created by the big bang. Or, to put it more clearly, that the big bang occured WITHIN already existing space. He perceives space to be a separate, infinite entity that exists independently of time and anything that physically resides within it.
This is a perfectly reasonable view of the cosmos, given what our senses tell us about the physical world around us. But, according to what we now know about the universe beyond that world - thanks to Einstein and others - it's mistaken.
Such a view is no longer possible when we realize that time is not some inflexible universal constant, but that it is inextricably linked to the construct of space. (A study of relativity - or more specifically, time dilation - will shed some illumination on this notion). Time and space were both created, as the big bang theory goes, simultaneously, in a fraction of an instant. What came before that fraction of an instant, and what existed before it, no one knows.
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Arcanix_X
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2003 : 12:40:40 [Permalink]
|
| Let me explain in another way. After big bang, time and space were created. Thus we can admit to the posibility that other singularities were created somewhere in space, just like our big bang singularity was created. Therefore the posibility that one of those singularities will form into a new big bang long after our universe will have spread into oblivion or collapsed (although the first seems to be the future of our universe). therefore there will be a chain that dennies the inexistence of space and time at any single point. Then I ask you, why isn't our big bang a link in that chain??? I am not saying einstein's theory is false but foret it for a moment and think for yourself on what I have posted here. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2003 : 12:59:36 [Permalink]
|
I am thinking for myself. It is not possible to measure anything which occured "before" the Big Bang, and it also is not possible to measure anything "outside" of our current universe (about 15 billion light years in radius). You are free to speculate about what might be out there, or what might have happened before, or what might happen later, but it's just speculation, and thus denies nothing.
The fact is, we have no evidence of our universe being a part of a chain of Big Bangs. We also have no evidence that it is not a part of such a chain. This is precisely the same amount and kind of evidence we have for the existence (or not) of God. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Arcanix_X
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2003 : 13:44:24 [Permalink]
|
| Then your denying the presence of anything out of our 15 bilion light years across isn't speculation? Or isn't it speculation to supose that our universe is only 15 bilion years across or old??? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2003 : 13:55:16 [Permalink]
|
| The age of the universe is not speculative, it is based upon evidence. Since the current hypothesis is that the Big Bang created both space and time, speaking of what might be "outside" of space is necessarily speculative, since we have no way to examine things which are not a part of this universe. The idea that there is something "outside" of our universe is an unnecessary and untestable hypothesis. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Arcanix_X
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2003 : 13:57:30 [Permalink]
|
| The age is speculative, because oru estimation of it is based on the fact that the farthest source of light to reach earth is 15 billion light years away. What you seem to forget is that with each new day passing, light from farther regions of our universe reaches us. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2003 : 20:16:19 [Permalink]
|
No, the age of the universe is based upon things other than the distance to the far-off stars, because that measurement, at such distances, is fraught with error. Instead, people use the Hubble constant, or the age of the oldest stars, or a few other methods to determine the age of the universe.
And what you seem to forget is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. The CMBR is made of photons which had their last significant interaction with matter approximately 300,000 years after the Big Bang. There is no light older than the CMBR, and we see it all the time. It has already reached us. The light from the most-distant galaxies is necessarily some thousands or millions of years younger than the CMBR.
The only way it would be possible for light from farther and farther regions of the universe to reach us for the first time every day is if the post-CMBR universe had, at some point, been expanding faster than the speed of light. The only hypothetical trans-light-speed inflation I've ever heard of supposedly occured within the first second after the Big Bang, if memory serves me correctly.
If the above is correct, then light from the most-distant stars has already gotten to Earth. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Arcanix_X
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2003 : 13:37:41 [Permalink]
|
| Dave, if I am going to admit to your logic of: he hasn't been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist, then you must agree to the existence of pink supersonic flying elephants and the boogy man. Think about it. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2003 : 18:42:00 [Permalink]
|
I'm sorry, Arcanix_X but you are not making any sense.
Thatever you think exist outside the Universe (present radius ~15 billion lightyears, expanding with the speed of light) is just idle speculation and can not be proven, there is no evidense of ANYTHING beyond.
"SPACE" as we know it only exist within the bubble that has its origin in the Big Bang. There isn't anything outside of it. Not Time, not Space.
As soon as you mention "space" my and Dave's minds default to space that exist in the universe within the 15 Gly radius. It's the only definition of space there is, and the only one that matters.
Arcanix wrote: "he hasn't been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist, then you must agree to the existence of pink supersonic flying elephants and the boogy man."
That's not what Dave has been trying to tell you.
The non-existance of something can not be logically proven. The only conclusion you can draw from that is that you have to withold conclusive judgement.
Though considered circumstantial evidense, God's failure to show up in court would suggest he does not exist. Or, if he does, don't give a damn. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
