The Universe: Concept that could blow your mind

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
What about the law and order angle? What if terrorists get hold of the information in this thread? Has anyone thought about this? They probably get some of their intelligence info by monitoring this board. Notice that Denny strangely does not require a password to read these secrets. What is his motive? Whose side is he on?
 
magnifier661 said:
Lets assume that this universe was completely natural (designed without intelligence) for argument sake. Don't need some 56 page argument about theism here. I just wanted to toss out something that has really got me thinking.

So if the big bang was the creation of all matter, space and time. Everything that was first created and will be created has already been created. Meaning, what happened a billion years ago and what happened a billion years from now are as one in this universe.

Now energy is considered a form of matter. Action like me deciding to write this thread is an example of using "energy". Would that mean that as the Universe expanded, before or whatever; this actual thread was already made? The responses from you have already been given. Kingspeed's ejaculation on pictures of Sly's headshot has already been decided?

I guess the real question is "All of everything already is during singularity?"
Click to expand...

I stopped reading at Big Bang, because I don't believe that the universe had a beginning, or that it will ever have an end. Then I read the rest anyway and my opinion is nothing is destined to be.
 
Nick Bostrom's simulation theory is mind boggling.

His theory even had Sam Harris (!!!!) pondering an afterlife.
 
I'm sticking with Douglass Addams theories but the disclaimer here is that we humans are limited in our ability to translate senses that go beyond our tools of perception. We tend to have a need to date events and seek definitions that are time based. Segovia said it well. Just before his life ended he said he was just beginning to understand the guitar. The journey is fascinating and our questions are interesting but honestly, do we need the answers? Seems like the guys who devote their lives to the unknown end up insane and frustrated. In my decades in Asia I taught myself to speak Mandarin fairly well without learning to read Chinese characters and there was a freedom in the way I approached it. I wasn't constantly bombarded with advertising and information that had no purpose in my daily life. It was art to me, not adds for crap I had no interest in purchasing or voting for. Sometimes less is more
 
magnifier661 said:
The matrix has you neo!
Click to expand...

In this simulation theory, what is the afterlife? Im a bit confused.

It seems like it coincides with Dr. Gates' discovery - web brower correcting codes found in the fabric of the cosmos.
 
Fez Hammersticks said:
In this simulation theory, what is the afterlife? Im a bit confused.

It seems like it coincides with Dr. Gates' discovery - web brower correcting codes found in the fabric of the cosmos.
Click to expand...
I don't think he actually says one way or another. It's more like, anything is possible in a simulation theory. It doesn't support Theism nor Atheism. I mean I guess you could call the being or conscious that created the simulation "God", but it doesn't mean this being is more "powerful" in a spiritual sense. I mean, it could be just a more advanced species that still dies like the rest of us. It could also support a eternal being. It could also support no being at all.

It's just a concept that we are Simmed by another intelligence or the universe itself has always been programmed to support our sim. Doesn't mean we live past death.
 
jlprk said:
In physics, "breaking causality" means to go faster than light.
Click to expand...


Not sure what this is supposed to mean, but it doesn't sound accurate. The physics of cause/effect aren't necessarily related to the speed of light.

Going faster than light does break temporal "locality" (according to General Relativity). In other words from a slower-than-light-speed reference frame an effect travelling faster than light might appear to precede its cause, but in terms of physics it's still cause & effect at work (going backwards). Nothing is necessarily broken.

I would think in physics breaking causality just refers to an uncaused event.
 
jlprk said:
If a mind could see the universe from above the time dimension, history would appear predetermined. All 4 dimensions would stretch out before him and he would see the universe from its beginning to its end, but stationary and unmoving. The orange fireball of existence would have seams and dimples, like a giant basketball. This great consciousness is why you and I find ourselves together on this board.
Click to expand...
I've actually spent a decent amount of time thinking about what brings people together. I don't have an answer but I will say that it is fascinating thinking about everything that had to go exactly the way it did to have all of us where we are right now.
 
Whatever the case, either the Universe is infinitely perfect, or its infinity chaotic. I like thinking it was perfect.
 
Fonzthecpt1 said:
I've actually spent a decent amount of time thinking about what brings people together.
Click to expand...

A keg of beer has always worked in my experience.

barfo
 
barfo said:
A keg of beer has always worked in my experience.

barfo
Click to expand...
I always thought it was phermones that really attracted us..as to the universe being perfect..I don't see it unless random uncertainty is perfection. In a perfect universe, the Blazers don't trade Andre Miller for Raymond Felton
 
In a perfect universe, there would be no diversity. If blue eyes are perfect, then everyone would have blue eyes. That's true for gazillions of things.
 
Except in our universe of perfect freedom, in which there are no true duplicates of anything.
 
In a perfect universe the Blazers would win the NBA title every year. Would someone please tell me how I jump to that universe?
 
jlprk said:
In physics, "breaking causality" means to go faster than light. Recently, Woodward's theory of causation has become prominent.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=woodward causality&qs=n&form=QBLH&scope=web&pq=woodward causality&sc=1-18&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=cc80084678fc4803aa668aa4d14157c6
Click to expand...

crowTrobot said:
Not sure what this is supposed to mean, but it doesn't sound accurate. The physics of cause/effect aren't necessarily related to the speed of light.

Going faster than light does break temporal "locality" (according to General Relativity). In other words from a slower-than-light-speed reference frame an effect travelling faster than light might appear to precede its cause, but in terms of physics it's still cause & effect at work (going backwards). Nothing is necessarily broken.

I would think in physics breaking causality just refers to an uncaused event.
Click to expand...

My source is this thread that I follow (as a layman) every day (they are onto a propulsion method, the EM drive, that can get to the nearest star in 130 years). As the Ph.D.s. evolve their theories in the thread, they try to preserve conservation of momentum, to define where inertia is stored, and to not "break causality." They use the last slang phrase to mean, to not exceed faster-than-light.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.2320
 
jlprk said:
My source is this thread that I follow (as a layman) every day (they are onto a propulsion method, the EM drive, that can get to the nearest star in 130 years). As the Ph.D.s. evolve their theories in the thread, they try to preserve conservation of momentum, to define where inertia is stored, and to not "break causality." They use the last slang phrase to mean, to not exceed faster-than-light.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.2320
Click to expand...

Well you said "in physics" it means that. Not that you were referring to a slang phrase used by some speculative bloggers.

I assume the phrase they use just refers to what I said about the implications of going faster than light in relativity.
 
magnifier661 said:
Whatever the case, either the Universe is infinitely perfect, or its infinity chaotic. I like thinking it was perfect.
Click to expand...

What's the difference? Infinitely perfect is a quite nonsensical phrase unless you are conceptualizing specifically what you mean by it
(one of several fatal flaws in the Ontological argument)
 
CrowTrobot, you sound like the type who should follow the thread I referenced. They are onto something great.
 
crowTrobot said:
What's the difference? Infinitely perfect is a quite nonsensical phrase unless you are conceptualizing specifically what you mean by it
(one of several fatal flaws in the Ontological argument)
Click to expand...
I disagree with it being nonsensical. If it's infinity perfect, eventually there will be perfection. The snowball effect. Infinity chaotic would mean, eventually the universe will expand to none life supporting. So there is meaning in this regard.
 
magnifier661 said:
I disagree with it being nonsensical. If it's infinity perfect, eventually there will be perfection. The snowball effect.
Click to expand...

Still nonsensically vague.

Are you trying to say an "infinitely perfect" universe will eventually snowball into a stable state maximally favorable for the development and flourishing of human life as it exists right now? That's a pretty anthropocentric view of perfection. And it's also moot because we know that's not happening.

Infinity chaotic would mean, eventually the universe will expand to none life supporting. So there is meaning in this regard.
Click to expand...

Ok this sort of makes sense if by infinite chaos you mean maximal entropy. And the evidence seems to be that is where this universe is headed (open expansion).

This would make life tough, although maybe not impossible. You could say if humanity's legacy is to survive at some point we will have to, at the very least, learn how to facilitate a replenishing supply of matter and be able to manipulate it on the scale of stars, if not galaxies.
 
crowTrobot said:
Still nonsensically vague.

Are you trying to say an "infinitely perfect" universe will eventually snowball into a stable state maximally favorable for the development and flourishing of human life as it exists right now? That's a pretty anthropocentric view of perfection. And it's also moot because we know that's not happening.



Ok this sort of makes sense if by infinite chaos you mean maximal entropy. And the evidence seems to be that is where this universe is headed (open expansion).

This would make life tough, although maybe not impossible. You could say if humanity's legacy is to survive at some point we will have to, at the very least, learn how to facilitate a replenishing supply of matter and be able to manipulate it on the scale of stars, if not galaxies.
Click to expand...

How can that be nonessential? There is already doubt that the universe may "expand to maximum entropy". At least it's not the "most certain" idea among the scientific community.

So choosing to believe in perfection is hardly "nonessential". If that were the case, then agnosticism would be silly. In fact, agnosticism is arguably the most logical ideology.
 


....we're the elves.

This guy would be a good sci-fi writer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top