NationStates Jolt Archive

This is just a theory I've had. It is that if you were to remove God or any other spiritual being from view and look at the world through the basis of what can or cannot be proven then I feel that you would come up with the final staement that without a supernatural being there is no proof that anything really exists. You could only prove that your mental state exists but even then you could only prove that to yourself.

Disagree? Agree? Why? Please answer but try to keep as little as possible religious based insults or personal insults to a minimum. Thank you.

What the hell are you talking about? I think you need to elaborate on your existential theory a little more.

What the hell are you talking about? I think you need to elaborate on your existential theory a little more.

I'm talking about that technically without a superantural being you cannot really prove you exist physically. Like right now. You can't prove from an atheistic point of view (the belief that there is no God, etc) that you exist. Nor can I actually prove to you that I exist because one I cannot see you, etc and two what if there is no physical properties? Can you prove that there is such a thing as physical without refering to us being created by a supernatural being? You can't. That's basically my theory.

Which pill will you take?

http://homepage.mac.com/mattankerich/5downloads/icons/matrix/pillspreview.jpg

Which pill will you take?

http://homepage.mac.com/mattankerich/5downloads/icons/matrix/pillspreview.jpg

You sure your in the right post? lol. Can you please eplain the difference? If I take red or blue?

Can you prove that there is such a thing as physical without refering to us being created by a supernatural being? You can't. That's basically my theory.
Umm...yes? How can you prove that one does exist with a supernatural being? You're making no sense. The only answer I can come up with is that you're high right now.

You sure your in the right post? lol. Can you please eplain the difference? If I take red or blue?
I think you're missing the point. And you've just convinced me that you are at least a little high right now.

Umm...yes? How can you prove that one does exist with a supernatural being? You're making no sense. The only answer I can come up with is that you're high right now.


I think you're missing the point. And you've just convinced me that you are at least a little high right now.

One I'm not high. Secondly I am only grasping the pill thing. Thirdly, without a supernatural being you cannot really prove existance because you cannot legally prove a begining. Unless something creates matter in the begining you cannot have existance. Right?

You sure your in the right post? lol. Can you please eplain the difference? If I take red or blue?

You take the blue pill and you can go on believing G-d doesnt exist and live in happy land, doing what you wish...

Take the Red pill and i show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes...

G-d Is the Matrix! OMG ROFL SHIFT!!~-!!~!~!1!~111~!!

You take the blue pill and you can go on believing G-d doesnt exist and live in happy land, doing what you wish...

Take the Red pill and i show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes...

G-d Is the Matrix! OMG ROFL SHIFT!!~-!!~!~!1!~111~!!

One I do not believe God is the Matrix since it doesn't exist (the Matrix, or at least we hope not). Secondly, I have seen the Matrix (the movie). Thirdly, how is the world happy when you cannot prove life is real or has meaning?

Unless something creates matter in the begining you cannot have existance. Right?
Hmm...have you ever heard of the Big Bang Theory? Or the singularity that the universe began from? I haven't gotten very far in physics yet, but what you're saying is that unless there's an omnipotent intelligence, matter cannot exist. Which is just ridiculous.

Take the Red pill and i show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes...
Actually, the rabbit hole is pretty deep. Alice estimated it at miles.

Hmm...have you ever heard of the Big Bang Theory? Or the singularity that the universe began from? I haven't gotten very far in physics yet, but what you're saying is that unless there's an omnipotent intelligence, matter cannot exist. Which is just ridiculous.

Tell me, if you split a molecule, you get an atom, split an atom get elestron, etc, split those get a cork (funny name don't ask me), and so on. But besides that how can something come from nothing? Everything physical can be made from something smaller. So unless there's some supernatural force to create the first particles of matter, there is no such thing as existance.

Actually, the rabbit hole is pretty deep. Alice estimated it at miles.

But can you prove that there was a rbbit hole? Without using a supernatural being.

But besides that how can something come from nothing?

We've got no clue! But we know it happened, because we can observe that things exist.

I am high...I was thinking....What if God is really Clay Aiken's Oversoul!

Tell me, if you split a molecule, you get an atom, split an atom get elestron, etc, split those get a cork (funny name don't ask me), and so on.
Well, first of all, if you split an atom, you get a fission explosion. A lot of energy is released. And atoms are composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons (though not all atoms have the last one). And it's called a "quark". The term was coined by Murray Gell-Mann.

But can you prove that there was a rbbit hole? Without using a supernatural being.
Yes, actually. If you read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll, it explicitly states that Alice falls down a very deep rabbit hole, or at least what Alice considers a rabbit hole.

Teckor...are you asking what is the basic element of everything? What everything is made from? The answer is so simple and so obvious, very few people have come to realize what everything is....

Well, first of all, if you split an atom, you get a fission explosion. A lot of energy is released. And atoms are composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons (though not all atoms have the last one). And it's called a "quark". The term was coined by Murray Gell-Mann.


Yes, actually. If you read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll, it explicitly states that Alice falls down a very deep rabbit hole, or at least what Alice considers a rabbit hole.

Alice was uneducated in physics and thus did not know about wormholes.


One I do not believe God is the Matrix since it doesn't exist (the Matrix, or at least we hope not). Secondly, I have seen the Matrix (the movie). Thirdly, how is the world happy when you cannot prove life is real or has meaning?

I am happy. I do not need to have real meaning for my life. I make one for it myself.

Alice was uneducated in physics and thus did not know about wormholes.
She was only seven years old! Give the girl a little slack! And plus, there is no proof that wormholes exist yet, they are currently hypothetical.

I am happy. I do not need to have real meaning for my life. I make one for it myself.
Good show!

She was only seven years old! Give the girl a little slack! And plus, there is no proof that wormholes exist yet, they are currently hypothetical.


Age is not a reason to be uneducated. You should for example be able to reference Holy texts of all major religions by heart and then point out the problems -when youre three years old.(My kids will be very grateful :p)

Teckor...are you asking what is the basic element of everything? What everything is made from? The answer is so simple and so obvious, very few people have come to realize what everything is....


Would you care to tell us what every thing is made up of?

Tell me, if you split a molecule, you get an atom, split an atom get elestron, etc, split those get a cork (funny name don't ask me), and so on. But besides that how can something come from nothing? Everything physical can be made from something smaller. So unless there's some supernatural force to create the first particles of matter, there is no such thing as existance.

The thing is that we just can't prove the big bang actually happened. Yet!!!!
But that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just the same with gravity. Before Newton there was gravity. That is what pulled the earth together. We will prove there is no god. I can assure you of that.

Would you care to tell us what every thing is made up of?

No...that would ruin the suprise...if you truly want to know I suggest...get some peyote and head to the desert....and don't forget to bring along a pack of camels and some coors...thats essential if you truly want to discover the answer....

[QUOTE=Gnostikos]She was only seven years old! Give the girl a little slack! And plus, there is no proof that wormholes exist yet, they are currently hypothetical.


... and have you ever examined old wood. There´s a lot of wormholes.

No...that would ruin the suprise...if you truly want to know I suggest...get some peyote and head to the desert....and don't forget to bring along a pack of camels and some coors...thats essential if you truly want to discover the answer....
So basically you're just avoiding explaining superstring theory.

... and have you ever examined old wood. There´s a lot of wormholes.
No, those are mainly from the larvae of coleopterans. Beetle grubs in layman's terms. Very different from worms. Not even in the same phylum.

So basically you're just avoiding explaining superstring theory.

Of course...

No, those are mainly from the larvae of coleopterans. Beetle grubs in layman's terms. Very different from worms. Not even in the same phylum.

True. You got me but if wormholes do not exist I am wondering what on earth happens every time I go in or out of my apartment door. My friends have theorized that my home does not exist. Instead everyone just thiks it is there and really it only in one infinitely small point.

Well I knew that. There are 10 dimenions. We can notice 4 but other 6 are kind of unknown or very small.

Well I knew that. There are 10 dimenions. We can notice 4 but other 6 are kind of unknown or very small.

So my home is maybe consisted of four other dimensions and there´s a sort of dimensionwarp in my door?

Hell I got scared :p

Well I knew that. There are 10 dimenions. We can notice 4 but other 6 are kind of unknown or very small.

M-Theory states 11.

This is just a theory I've had. It is that if you were to remove God or any other spiritual being from view and look at the world through the basis of what can or cannot be proven then I feel that you would come up with the final staement that without a supernatural being there is no proof that anything really exists. You could only prove that your mental state exists but even then you could only prove that to yourself.

Disagree? Agree? Why? Please answer but try to keep as little as possible religious based insults or personal insults to a minimum. Thank you.

"I think therefore I am"

One can only ever prove the existance of oneself to oneself, regardless of the existance of a supreme spiritual being.

This is just a theory I've had. It is that if you were to remove God or any other spiritual being from view and look at the world through the basis of what can or cannot be proven then I feel that you would come up with the final staement that without a supernatural being there is no proof that anything really exists. You could only prove that your mental state exists but even then you could only prove that to yourself.

Disagree? Agree? Why? Please answer but try to keep as little as possible religious based insults or personal insults to a minimum. Thank you.

One word, man: Solipsism.

Well I knew that. There are 10 dimenions. We can notice 4 but other 6 are kind of unknown or very small.

Hmm, a few thoughts... 1,2,3 (space),4 (time), 5 (dimention resposible for gravity), 6 (dimention resposable for light/sound), 7 (dimention resposible for ESP in humans, eye contact perception, etc.), 8 (dimention responsibe for intelligent thought) 9, ... OK, eight so far. Any thoughts?

One word, man: Solipsism.

To coin a term, yes, exactly.

To coin a term, yes, exactly.

That one word could have replaced the entire first post, and averted this entire thread. ~sigh~

Hmm, a few thoughts... 1,2,3 (space),4 (time), 5 (dimention resposible for gravity), 6 (dimention resposable for light/sound), 7 (dimention resposible for ESP in humans, eye contact perception, etc.), 8 (dimention responsibe for intelligent thought) 9, ... OK, eight so far. Any thoughts?

Heat, that's nine.

Hmm, a few thoughts... 1,2,3 (space),4 (time), 5 (dimention resposible for gravity), 6 (dimention resposable for light/sound), 7 (dimention resposible for ESP in humans, eye contact perception, etc.), 8 (dimention responsibe for intelligent thought) 9, ... OK, eight so far. Any thoughts?
The hell...?

Heat, that's nine.
See above. And obviously you're unfamiliar with calories to even mention it.

To coin a term, yes, exactly.
Actually, solipsism is an old term. It's derived form Latin. It can't really be considered "coined" because it's been around for so long.

The hell...?


See above. And obviously you're unfamiliar with calories to even mention it.


Actually, solipsism is an old term. It's derived form Latin. It can't really be considered "coined" because it's been around for so long.

O, come on! I was merely spurring conversation.
Calory - Unit of heat defined as the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1C at atmospheric pressure. OK, explain.
As for 'coined', I was using the term very loosely. You'd better watch what you say from now on, because I might feel inclined correct your every slip. ;)

Tell me, if you split a molecule, you get an atom, split an atom get elestron, etc, split those get a cork (funny name don't ask me), and so on. But besides that how can something come from nothing? Everything physical can be made from something smaller. So unless there's some supernatural force to create the first particles of matter, there is no such thing as existance.
this is just the old 'what was there before the big bang' question, with a religious bit tacked on ('must have been God'). Well there are two ways of looking at this question:
1. there is no answer. there can be no answer as we will never know or be able to find out, without going back in the 4th dimension (hehe geeky) and witnessing what was there before the big bang. then get the hell out of there really really fast...
2. Stephen Hawkings presented some theory of what there was before the big bang, but all i remember is that there were 42 plains of something :( anyone know any more?

This is just a theory I've had. It is that if you were to remove God or any other spiritual being from view and look at the world through the basis of what can or cannot be proven then I feel that you would come up with the final staement that without a supernatural being there is no proof that anything really exists. You could only prove that your mental state exists but even then you could only prove that to yourself.

Disagree? Agree? Why? Please answer but try to keep as little as possible religious based insults or personal insults to a minimum. Thank you.I would still believe that there is a higher being. Too much weird shit (taking God out of the POV) happened and is happening in my life that makes me believe that there are forces that science cannot explain at work.

This is just a theory I've had. It is that if you were to remove God or any other spiritual being from view and look at the world through the basis of what can or cannot be proven then I feel that you would come up with the final staement that without a supernatural being there is no proof that anything really exists. You could only prove that your mental state exists but even then you could only prove that to yourself.

Disagree? Agree? Why? Please answer but try to keep as little as possible religious based insults or personal insults to a minimum. Thank you.

congratulations, you just found out that there is no absolute basis for knowledge and thus you no longer belong to the 17th century! Note that even with a supernatural being there is no proof at all.

Anyone that flames this post is ignorant. I do agree wth this in many ways, but how do you define god?

The universe (or all that we can mentally contemplate) has something to do with being infinite, in a finite way (infinitly finite). For instance if you take an orange, it cane be said it is a limited amonut of space, but mathematically you could cut it to infinity.

congratulations, you just found out that there is no absolute basis for knowledge and thus you no longer belong to the 17th century! Note that even with a supernatural being there is no proof at all.

No but a supernatural being enables the possibility for matter to exist since if there is some being more powerful than we are which does not belong to matter or the confines of matterialistic rules then existance is possible but without it no matter can exist. Therefore existance is impossible without a supernatural being.

The big bang theory simply states that at the begining of time all the matter of the universe was in the space the size the head of a pin. But the problem is that the matter has to come from somewhere so therefore that wasn't the begining at all.

The universe (or all that we can mentally contemplate) has something to do with being infinite, in a finite way (infinitly finite). For instance if you take an orange, it cane be said it is a limited amonut of space, but mathematically you could cut it to infinity.

yes but the particles that make up that orange had to have come from somewhere. You can't according to science have an orange coming from nothing (absolute nothing as in no matter or particles whatsoever). 1st law of thermo dynamics: energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Which means matter by our means or our understanding of things cannot be created nor destroyed so unless there is a superior being which is above matter then, we don't exist.

this is just the old 'what was there before the big bang' question, with a religious bit tacked on ('must have been God'). Well there are two ways of looking at this question:
1. there is no answer. there can be no answer as we will never know or be able to find out, without going back in the 4th dimension (hehe geeky) and witnessing what was there before the big bang. then get the hell out of there really really fast...
2. Stephen Hawkings presented some theory of what there was before the big bang, but all i remember is that there were 42 plains of something :( anyone know any more?

But unfortunately the big bang theory contradictes the first law of thermo dynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy and matter are there together, you cannot have one without the other. Also if the big bang was the begining, then how can there be something before that?and how do you know there are 10 dimensions? or even four? People say that there are at least four dimensions but by that same token 100 years ago people thought the world is flat which it is now thought to be wrong since Christopher Columbus sailed from west to east in a circle.

"I think therefore I am"

One can only ever prove the existance of oneself to oneself, regardless of the existance of a supreme spiritual being.

But only your thoughts can be proven of existance to yourself, not you physically. A supreme spiritual being makes physical properties explainable.

But only your thoughts can be proven of existance to yourself, not you physically. A supreme spiritual being makes physical properties explainable.


As I have said before and I will say it again. Just because we didn't know there was gravity doesn't mean it didn't exist. Samething in this case. Just because we can't explain how the universe really started doesn't mean there isn't one.

Hmm, a few thoughts... 1,2,3 (space),4 (time), 5 (dimention resposible for gravity), 6 (dimention resposable for light/sound), 7 (dimention resposible for ESP in humans, eye contact perception, etc.), 8 (dimention responsibe for intelligent thought) 9, ... OK, eight so far. Any thoughts?

A dimension for light/sound? For imtelligent thought? Gravity? How do you know those are dimensions? So what, acidity is also a dimesnion? I don't see how light/ sound/ heat can have dimensions since they are all simply forms of energy .

As I have said before and I will say it again. Just because we didn't know there was gravity doesn't mean it didn't exist. Samething in this case. Just because we can't explain how the universe really started doesn't mean there isn't one.

No, but without a supernatural being some laws that scientists have created contradict other theories such as the big bang which is atheism.

If there is a supernatural being then prove it?

If there is a supernatural being then prove it?

Well, prove gravity. You can't see it or smell it or use any other senses really but you see the effects of it. Take for instance our existance. We have been designed to work. Just like how a car is designed to work. But since people are corrupt then the design doesn't work as it should always.

Well, prove gravity. You can't see it or smell it or use any other senses really but you see the effects of it. Take for instance our existance. We have been designed to work. Just like how a car is designed to work. But since people are corrupt then the design doesn't work as it should always.

You didn't answer my question. But anyway the reason why I think there is no supernatural being is because when people were primitive they thought that something like them must have powers to do the things that they saw. Just as animals do us. They most likely think we are gods but we are even more screwed up then them. Plus nothing is that easy. Everything is complicated.

But unfortunately the big bang theory contradictes the first law of thermo dynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy and matter are there together, you cannot have one without the other. Also if the big bang was the begining, then how can there be something before that?and how do you know there are 10 dimensions? or even four? People say that there are at least four dimensions but by that same token 100 years ago people thought the world is flat which it is now thought to be wrong since Christopher Columbus sailed from west to east in a circle.
I've heard a theory (I'm not sure, it may be standard thinking) a while ago, I think from Scientific American, that the standard laws of physics did not apply in the early universe (ie, before/during the big bang, and even a little after I think). Basically, at that time, something COULD be created out of nothing. Also, I believe the current Big Bang theory states that ALL the matter and energy that's in the universe today was all there in that one singularity, just unimaginely(sp?) compressed.

You didn't answer my question. But anyway the reason why I think there is no supernatural being is because when people were primitive they thought that something like them must have powers to do the things that they saw. Just as animals do us. They most likely think we are gods but we are even more screwed up then them. Plus nothing is that easy. Everything is complicated.

Tell me, what would happen if a tornade blew through a garbage dump? Would there be standing there after a brand new, working car? Heck no. There'd be a bigger mess. That's what the big bang theory states. Evolution also states that and that the Leonardo never existed, that his paintings just came about by random change with wind, water, gravity. When something is designed, there is a designer, that can be known to be true.

But unfortunately the big bang theory contradictes the first law of thermo dynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy and matter are there together, you cannot have one without the other. Also if the big bang was the begining, then how can there be something before that?and how do you know there are 10 dimensions? or even four? People say that there are at least four dimensions but by that same token 100 years ago people thought the world is flat which it is now thought to be wrong since Christopher Columbus sailed from west to east in a circle.

The reason why we know there are atleast 4 is because we can see them and expierence them. Everything has length, width, and mass. Also everything expierences time.

I've heard a theory (I'm not sure, it may be standard thinking) a while ago, I think from Scientific American, that the standard laws of physics did not apply in the early universe (ie, before/during the big bang, and even a little after I think). Basically, at that time, something COULD be created out of nothing. Also, I believe the current Big Bang theory states that ALL the matter and energy that's in the universe today was all there in that one singularity, just unimaginely(sp?) compressed.

But then what changed that? How come there is that law? Also wouldn't the matter remain compressed? That's like saying that a black hole (if they exist) should explode. The gravity at the big bang would be so great that nothing would leave. Not light or sound, much less an atom.

The reason why we know there are atleast 4 is because we can see them and expierence them. Everything has length, width, and mass. Also everything expierences time.

But is there time? How do you know that time isn't simply the movement of energy? If you we're to freeze something so that even the energy would remain motionless then have you frozen time? Or simply energy? Nothing happens without energy. Nothing happens either without time. So is time and energy the same thing?

Tell me, what would happen if a tornade blew through a garbage dump? Would there be standing there after a brand new, working car? Heck no. There'd be a bigger mess. That's what the big bang theory states. Evolution also states that and that the Leonardo never existed, that his paintings just came about by random change with wind, water, gravity. When something is designed, there is a designer, that can be known to be true.

I think what you are missing is that everything goes through evolution. Paintings degrade, as do people and everthing else. Everything he used like paint and his brushs were made of things that you can find in nature. But it took a mind to make it into a painting. It takes a mind to make a masterpiece.

I think what you are missing is that everything goes through evolution. Paintings degrade, as do people and everthing else. Everything he used like paint and his brushs were made of things that you can find in nature. But it took a mind to make it into a painting. It takes a mind to make a masterpiece.

Yes and the human body is a masterpiece (or at least was). So was the Earth. In some aspects it still is. It's the perfect distance from the sun to support life, perfect tilt to allow seasons, humans have almost two of every organ, they can life with one kidney, lung, 2/3 of a liver, half a brain, ribs can have parts remoed and they grown back, we think and understand things, we design things, we are unique enough to understand our begining and to choose whether or not to accept fact. We, the Earth and the inhabitants of the Earth were designed for something, so there must be a designer. The designer however is not at fault, we are. We sin, ruin life, destroy species, we are the problem.

Yes and the human body is a masterpiece (or at least was). So was the Earth. In some aspects it still is. It's the perfect distance from the sun to support life, perfect tilt to allow seasons, humans have almost two of every organ, they can life with one kidney, lung, 2/3 of a liver, half a brain, ribs can have parts remoed and they grown back, we think and understand things, we design things, we are unique enough to understand our begining and to choose whether or not to accept fact. We, the Earth and the inhabitants of the Earth were designed for something, so there must be a designer. The designer however is not at fault, we are. We sin, ruin life, destroy species, we are the problem.

I have a question that if you answer will help get a better understanding of you. Do believe that there are aliens that live on planets similar to ours?

I have a question that if you answer will help get a better understanding of you. Do believe that there are aliens that live on planets similar to ours?

Quite honestly, I wouldn't know. My belief doesn't saythat there is or isn't. So there might be other humans from Earth, but I doubt that there is other life that is native to that planet since it would in some aspects contradict my belief.

Well I gtg. It has been interesting. I wish to continue this discussion.
What is the full name of your country?

I really don't believe in matter myself, anyway.

You'd better watch what you say from now on, because I might feel inclined correct your every slip. ;)
Please do. If I am wrong, by all means correct me.

But unfortunately the big bang theory contradictes the first law of thermo dynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy and matter are there together, you cannot have one without the other. Also if the big bang was the begining, then how can there be something before that?and how do you know there are 10 dimensions? or even four? People say that there are at least four dimensions but by that same token 100 years ago people thought the world is flat which it is now thought to be wrong since Christopher Columbus sailed from west to east in a circle.But is there time? How do you know that time isn't simply the movement of energy? If you we're to freeze something so that even the energy would remain motionless then have you frozen time? Or simply energy? Nothing happens without energy. Nothing happens either without time. So is time and energy the same thing?
Please, do not talk about higher-level physics like you understand it when you really have pretty much no understanding. I haven't even taken a physics class yet, and I know that some of what you say is silly. You should probably read Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott, it relates the second dimension to the third, which may help you understand the third to the fourth. And when something has no energy, that is called absolute zero, which is impossible according to current physics.

Adding a supreme being to an otherwise solipsist world-view doesn't change anything. If you take anything as given you may as well take everything as given. In other words, without making any assumptions about the nature of the universe we can say "I exist" because I percieve myself. We can even take it a step farther and say "the universe exists within me" because I model it in my mind. We cannot say that there is or is not a supreme being or force without making some assumptions. If we make one assumption, the entire logical strength of the solipsist position falls apart because it is based not on observation and logical deduction, but based on the one posit and deduction. If we were to posit the existence of a supreme being or force, we may as well posit the existence of the entire universe without a supreme being. From a logical standpoint, and in their adherence to the observed world, they are equally viable, though neither is more likely or more believable.

In other words, what your theory basically says is that if we take away the universe of assumptions we are left with solipsism, which is not very meaningful since that is the definition of solipsism.

In other words, what your theory basically says is that if we take away the universe of assumptions we are left with solipsism, which is not very meaningful since that is the definition of solipsism.
You see, however, Teckor is infallible in his circular reasoning.

You see, however, Teckor is infallible in his circular reasoning.

Boy, that's gotta be nice for him. :headbang: ;) :cool:

In other words, without making any assumptions about the nature of the universe we can say "I exist" because I percieve myself. We can even take it a step farther and say "the universe exists within me" because I model it in my mind.

Cartesianism is a miserable failure, its niether logical nor reasonable, when you say "I think, therefore I am" you are still asserting an unprovable assumption.

Cartesianism is a miserable faiure, its niether logical or reasonable, when you say "I think, therefore I am" you are still asserting an unprovable assumption.

I think therefor thought exists. It's all about the burden of proof, if you set it high enough everything becomes impossible to prove, set it low enough and everything is true. The most important thing is being able to find a balance between the two extremes rather than going insane trying to logic your way to one pole.

I think therefor thought exists. It's all about the burden of proof, if you set it high enough everything becomes impossible to prove, set it low enough and everything is true. The most important thing is being able to find a balance between the two extremes rather than going insane trying to logic your way to one pole.

"I think therefore I am" is still an assumption, it in no way can be said to be a proven fact. For all you know God could be Clay Aiken's Oversoul, insane and you are just one of his multiple personalities......

For all you know God could be Clay Aiken's Oversoul, insane and you are just one of his multiple personalities......
I've already diagnosed God with Dissociative Identity Disorder, after all.

"I think therefore I am" is still an assumption, it in no way can be said to be a proven fact. For all you know God could be Clay Aiken's Oversoul, insane and you are just one of his multiple personalities......

In which case I would still exist. People need to understand that existing within the mind of another is still existing. Even if the entire universe is a dream of one mind, it still exists, and there is no reason to act like it doesn't.

"I think therefor I am," or "I think therefor thought exists" are both logically consistent without the overconstrictive definition of physical existence.

I've already diagnosed God with Dissociative Identity Disorder, after all.

Well, I always had my suspicions...

In which case I would still exist. People need to understand that existing within the mind of another is still existing. Even if the entire universe is a dream of one mind, it still exists, and there is no reason to act like it doesn't.

"I think therefor I am," or "I think therefor thought exists" are both logically consistent without the overconstrictive definition of physical existence.

Using that logic I could say Peter Pan exist because he exist in a book or even that there is a Santa Claus because Santa exist in the hearts of children all over the world.

Using that logic I could say Peter Pan exist because he exist in a book or even that there is a Santa Claus because Santa exist in the hearts of children all over the world.

And both of those would be logically consistent statements, though you would do well to condition them with explanations of the specific sort of existence you mean, since people are bound to get confused if you use one word to mean many different, but similar, things.

And both of those would be logically consistent statements, though you would do well to condition them with explanations of the specific sort of existence you mean, since people are bound to get confused if you use one word to mean many different, but similar, things.

But.just because a statement is logically consistent, does it make that statement the truth? does it mean that it conforms with reality?

But.just because a statement is logically consistent, does it make that statement the truth? does it mean that it conforms with reality?

"When you remove all that is impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth." It sounds silly, but it really is true, although the wording is a bit wrong. It should read "Every metaphyiscal ideal which is not impossible is necessarily true." The problem we have is that the existential universe is not the one that we spend most of our time in. Most of the time people live in the model or map of the universe that they keep in their head. The only time we ever truly experience in the existential universe is when we are discovering something entirely new and unfamiliar, and that is very rare. All new ideas in the fields of metaphysics, philosophy, and general sciences are the result of a person escaping the confines of their manufactured universe and interacting and observing the physical, existential universe without filters and prejudices.

When we make a statement about the nature of reality we are generally making a statement only about the nature of our personal reality, so the only judge of its truth is it's logical consistency. If it is logically consistent it is true, if not, it is false, misunderstood, or misworded. Rarely if ever does anyone make any statements about the "real" universe, and even then the statements are generally limitted to "the universe conforms to my understanding of it, not yours."

"When you remove all that is impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth." It sounds silly, but it really is true, although the wording is a bit wrong. It should read "Every metaphyiscal ideal which is not impossible is necessarily true." The problem we have is that the existential universe is not the one that we spend most of our time in. Most of the time people live in the model or map of the universe that they keep in their head. The only time we ever truly experience in the existential universe is when we are discovering something entirely new and unfamiliar, and that is very rare. All new ideas in the fields of metaphysics, philosophy, and general sciences are the result of a person escaping the confines of their manufactured universe and interacting and observing the physical, existential universe without filters and prejudices.

When we make a statement about the nature of reality we are generally making a statement only about the nature of our personal reality, so the only judge of its truth is it's logical consistency. If it is logically consistent it is true, if not, it is false, misunderstood, or misworded. Rarely if ever does anyone make any statements about the "real" universe, and even then the statements are generally limitted to "the universe conforms to my understanding of it, not yours."

The map is not the territory.

It is impossible to prove a conclusion without assumptions. All assumptions are proven through previous assumptions, excepting the most basic of all assumptions. These are the ones that can not be proven, and have to be accepted. They are, for instance, that 1 equals 1, and that we exist. They can never be proven entirely with the human range of reality. The reason they can not be proven is that we do not have a reality unequivocally defined.

this is yet another wtf moment

this is yet another wtf moment

Yup...I should get people into the whole Free Will vs Determinism debate jsut to see what happens....

The map is not the territory.

The map is not the territory, but that doesn't stop people from trying to live in the map. That's my point, because everyone is trying their best to live in the map it makes sense to use words that fit that mindset. Most people spend their time trying to modify the world to fit their maps, rather than seeking the truth and modifying their maps accordingly.

The territory is unknowable, we live in the territory but act based on our maps, and there isn't any way around it without changing the nature of observation. Now I'm not saying that isn't a good idea, and I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am saying that it is impractical for the majority of people, at least today, so we need to speak for them.

Those of us with an understanding of the difference between the map and the territory are obliged to come back and put what we have learned into words the rest of humanity can understand. In that pursuit we'll run through a thousand different wordings of the same idea until we finally get it right. I don't think I've got it yet, but I'm working toward it.

Yup...I should get people into the whole Free Will vs Determinism debate jsut to see what happens....

I love that one, but I think it's a bit overdone. The only true freedom is to choose who or what controls you. Or at least that's the conclusion I've come to.

I love that one, but I think it's a bit overdone. The only true freedom is to choose who or what controls you. Or at least that's the conclusion I've come to.

really? My conclusion regarding the matter is...you are not free to not choose...the nature of reality is such that it you have to make a choice...free will is determined

A dimension for light/sound? For imtelligent thought? Gravity? How do you know those are dimensions? So what, acidity is also a dimesnion? I don't see how light/ sound/ heat can have dimensions since they are all simply forms of energy .

True, but what if I refine my theory and say that energy must exist within a dimention other than space or time. For example, there is no point having the three dimentions of space without time because without time, the objects can't move. I would add to this that without energy, which exists on a totally different plain, objects can't move either. Why should friction cause heat? there's no particular need for it to that. Essentially what I'm saying is that we can create 3D models on a computer, place a few spheres and pyramids in there, and have time passing without the existance of energy. A computer model just doesn't have as many dimentions as reality does. (And don't anyone tell me that's because it's being depicted on a two dimentional screen either.) There's your fifth dimention.

Gravity - Same thing. Why should an object utilise a force depending on how large a mass it has? Surley this is beyond our conventional 4 dimentions.

Magnetism - See gravity, this ones totally different though.

OK, now prove me wrong. ;)

But.just because a statement is logically consistent, does it make that statement the truth? does it mean that it conforms with reality?

A teacher says they will set a test on an unexpected day of the week. The students know it will be next week, but not which day. As such, they can rule out Friday because if they get to Thursday, they will know for certain that the test will be on Friday and it won't be unexpected. But, if that's the case, than the test can't be set on Thursday either because if they get to Wednesday and there hasn't been a test, it will definately be on Thurday because it simply cannot be unexpected on Friday, so it will definately be on Thursday. It can't be on Wednesday either though because it cannot be unexpected on either days after Wednesday, so it can't be Wednesday either... Eventually, the test cannot be set during the week at all, because every day it would be expected. Totally logical, but a total load of nonsense.

True, but what if I refine my theory and say that energy must exist within a dimention other than space or time. For example, there is no point having the three dimentions of space without time because without time, the objects can't move. I would add to this that without energy, which exists on a totally different plain, objects can't move either.

Because if something is moving, then it has energy by defintion. Saying "without energy something can't move" is about as circular as saying "something can't move without velocity."

BTW, define what you mean by "exists on a different plane." What plane is this, how does it interact with ours? What evidence do we have to support its existence?


Why should friction cause heat? there's no particular need for it to that.

Yes there is. Say you drag a wood block across the table. If you look at it on the molecular level, friction is the collisions between the molecules in the block and in the table. When the the molecules of the block, which are moving, collide with the stationary molecules of the table, they transfer some energy. Think billiard balls colliding. Hence, heat is transfered - since heat is, after all, just energy of motion of the molecules.

Essentially what I'm saying is that we can create 3D models on a computer, place a few spheres and pyramids in there, and have time passing without the existance of energy. A computer model just doesn't have as many dimentions as reality does. (And don't anyone tell me that's because it's being depicted on a two dimentional screen either.) There's your fifth dimention.

A computer model is part of reality. Hence, it would have as many dimensions as reality, since it is part of reality.


Gravity - Same thing. Why should an object utilise a force depending on how large a mass it has? Surley this is beyond our conventional 4 dimentions.

Well, according to general relativity, mass distorts our 4-dimensional spacetime, and this generates the effects we see.


Magnetism - See gravity, this ones totally different though.


Magnetism is the effect of moving electric charges. Or, in the case of electrons, "spinning." You still haven't explained why an "additional dimension" is necessary or what it does.


OK, now prove me wrong. ;)

Prove yourself right. Give a prediction that your theory generates, something that we didn't know already, and test it. Until you do, your theory has no more credibility than the claim that there are undetectable bunnies sitting inside everything in the universe.

Because if something is moving, then it has energy by defintion. Saying "without energy something can't move" is about as circular as saying "something can't move without velocity."

BTW, define what you mean by "exists on a different plane." What plane is this, how does it interact with ours? What evidence do we have to support its existence?

That's correct, movement cannot occur without velocity. Saying something cannot move without the time to do it or the space to do it in is just as circular is it not? What I mean by existing in another plain is that "energy" is not a phenomenon that exists within our four dimentions - it is a medium, or the results of a medium or plain, that allows objects to move, be seen, change temperature, etc.

Yes there is. Say you drag a wood block across the table. If you look at it on the molecular level, friction is the collisions between the molecules in the block and in the table. When the the molecules of the block, which are moving, collide with the stationary molecules of the table, they transfer some energy. Think billiard balls colliding. Hence, heat is transfered - since heat is, after all, just energy of motion of the molecules.

I understand this, but why does the energy needed for movement convert to heat energy? Why is it so?

A computer model is part of reality. Hence, it would have as many dimensions as reality, since it is part of reality.

The computer existst in reality, of course. I believe the term you're in need of is "virtual-reality". It represents what we experience in the real world.

Well, according to general relativity, mass distorts our 4-dimensional spacetime, and this generates the effects we see.

OK, so explain that. It MUST exist on an external plain. How can it destort the very perameters it is set unless it has other perameters outside space and time.

Magnetism is the effect of moving electric charges. Or, in the case of electrons, "spinning." You still haven't explained why an "additional dimension" is necessary or what it does.

This one is peculiar because it connects both energy and gravity. It is like gravity on the level of quantum mechanics. Sting theory says the other 6 dimentions are packed tightly together. Perhaps the similarity here is congruent and worth considering.

Prove yourself right. Give a prediction that your theory generates, something that we didn't know already, and test it. Until you do, your theory has no more credibility than the claim that there are undetectable bunnies sitting inside everything in the universe.

If there are more dimentions than we previously thought, then we can alter our position on plains seperate to space and time to defy laws of Physics. Humans have the ability to slow time down, for example, catching a fast moving ball in front of one's face etc. (though this could be explained differently). How about the ability of a human to increase the rate at which time passes through meditation - we are no longer within the confines of time.

The ability to communicate without speech or physical jestures. We can see signs of this in ESP and the ability to detect when someone is looking at you. I predict we can develop this ability which exists outside of space and time.

C'mon, surley someone can debate this theory.

If there are more dimentions than we previously thought, then we can alter our position on plains seperate to space and time to defy laws of Physics.

Okay. Build a device to do that! Then we'll believe you.


Humans have the ability to slow time down

We can slow down or speed up our PERCEPTION of time. If you time how long it takes the ball to move from point A to point B, the watch will tell you the same thing whether or not there is somebody catching it or not.

We also don't experience time when we fall asleep. Is that also evidence that there are extra dimensions?

Okay. Build a device to do that! Then we'll believe you.

The device is the human mind. ;)

Alright, I can't build a time machine and I coniser time travel back in time to be impossable, we only consider it at all because of our concept of time. Really, the earth is in a constant state of flux. We created the concept of time so we could meet somewhere simulaniously.

What about flight. What are wind currents? Are they physical forces? If so, what are thay made of and why are we able to utilise them?

Oh, and here's another one: The majority of 'stuff' in the world is nothing. That is the distance between atoms is greater than the size of the atoms. Doesn't this imply that about 99% of space in totally unoccupied. Strange.

This is just a theory I've had. It is that if you were to remove God or any other spiritual being from view and look at the world through the basis of what can or cannot be proven then I feel that you would come up with the final staement that without a supernatural being there is no proof that anything really exists. You could only prove that your mental state exists but even then you could only prove that to yourself.

Disagree? Agree? Why? Please answer but try to keep as little as possible religious based insults or personal insults to a minimum. Thank you.

Aww, did you just discover epistemology?

How sweet~

Oh, and here's another one: The majority of 'stuff' in the world is nothing. That is the distance between atoms is greater than the size of the atoms. Doesn't this imply that about 99% of space in totally unoccupied. Strange.


Not 99%

99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%


Boggles the mind.

Not 99%

99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%


Boggles the mind.

It does indeed, but it doesn't make much sense. Then again, the only useful things in existance are empty spaces (to take a Taoist viewpoint)

What about flight. What are wind currents? Are they physical forces? If so, what are thay made of and why are we able to utilise them?

Wind currents are made up of the motions of air molecules. We're able to use them because air molecules interact with molecules in the wings of airplanes, exerting pressure.

All you're demonstrating is your ignorance of physics.

BTW, "more dimensions" isn't just a wishy-washy term for "wierd things that can do anything they feel like." In String Theory, the dimensions are mathematically defined, follow precise rules. ...the problem with String Theory is that although it does give predictions that are testable, devices we currently have can't measure them because they're on too small a scale. The hope is that eventually, they'll be tested and then String theory will be either validated or disproven.

All you have given is lots of questions that start with "Why..." and infer that they somehow mean that there are more dimensions. They don't. The fact that we don't know the answer to "Why do moving things have kinetic energy" doesn't mean there's an energy dimension.

The device is the human mind. ;)

The human brain does not defy any physical laws. It's frickin' complicated, and uses physical laws in quirky ways, and we don't understand it; but it doesn't violate any physical laws.

Wind currents are made up of the motions of air molecules. We're able to use them because air molecules interact with molecules in the wings of airplanes, exerting pressure.

All you're demonstrating is your ignorance of physics.

BTW, "more dimensions" isn't just a wishy-washy term for "wierd things that can do anything they feel like." In String Theory, the dimensions are mathematically defined, follow precise rules. ...the problem with String Theory is that although it does give predictions that are testable, devices we currently have can't measure them because they're on too small a scale. The hope is that eventually, they'll be tested and then String theory will be either validated or disproven.

All you have given is lots of questions that start with "Why..." and infer that they somehow mean that there are more dimensions. They don't. The fact that we don't know the answer to "Why do moving things have kinetic energy" doesn't mean there's an energy dimension.

No, it doesn't, you're right. However, am I correct in assuming that we know everything there is to know about the four dimentions of space and time. They're quite simple really. If that is the case, when something acts in an unexplainable way, it is quite likely that it does so from another dimention.
BTW, I understand basic physics, I'm just saying that it can't explain everything. The other thing is that physics involves models which may or may not be 'true' in order to explain and predict things. Physics does not claim that theese models are fact, only that they depict in a logical way the effects we see.

The human brain does not defy any physical laws. It's frickin' complicated, and uses physical laws in quirky ways, and we don't understand it; but it doesn't violate any physical laws.

Yes, you're right there also, very frickin' complicated. More complicated than our four dimensions. ;) (OK, maby not, but it is interesting).

BTW, I understand basic physics, I'm just saying that it can't explain everything. The other thing is that physics involves models which may or may not be 'true' in order to explain and predict things. Physics does not claim that theese models are fact, only that they depict in a logical way the effects we see.

Just to add to this - the scientific method cannot ever establish a true "law", in the sense of somethng that has been proven to be inviolate. The best it can ever do is say "it worked this way every time we checked".

There is also a school of thought that all the "laws" of physics are just very, very strong probabilities.

No, it doesn't, you're right. However, am I correct in assuming that we know everything there is to know about the four dimentions of space and time.

We don't know what happens when you put a lot of mass in a small area. We've got no theory of Quantum Gravity. That's the simplest thing we don't know.

Or, to be precise - we know everything about the four dimensions of space and time. There are lots of things we don't know about how particles INTERACT with these dimesions.


They're quite simple really. If that is the case, when something acts in an unexplainable way, it is quite likely that it does so from another dimention.

No, that means we don't understand something about a phenomenon. That does not merit the assumption of another dimension.

"Another dimension" is not a free ticket to "particles do whatever they want." You sound like a creationist arguing for the existence of God - "we don't know how it works, therefore God did it." In your case, it's "we don't know how it works, therefore there are more dimensions." That's not a valid argument. If you want to present a theory that involves more dimensions than the basic four, go ahead - but saying "there are more dimensions" tells us nothing. What's important is how they interact with matter, how they work. As you've presented it, saying "there's an invisible bunny inside each particle" is about as testable as "there are more dimensions."

There is also a school of thought that all the "laws" of physics are just very, very strong probabilities.

Yes, that's very true.

We don't know what happens when you put a lot of mass in a small area. We've got no theory of Quantum Gravity. That's the simplest thing we don't know.

Or, to be precise - we know everything about the four dimensions of space and time. There are lots of things we don't know about how particles INTERACT with these dimesions.



No, that means we don't understand something about a phenomenon. That does not merit the assumption of another dimension.

"Another dimension" is not a free ticket to "particles do whatever they want." You sound like a creationist arguing for the existence of God - "we don't know how it works, therefore God did it." In your case, it's "we don't know how it works, therefore there are more dimensions." That's not a valid argument. If you want to present a theory that involves more dimensions than the basic four, go ahead - but saying "there are more dimensions" tells us nothing. What's important is how they interact with matter, how they work. As you've presented it, saying "there's an invisible bunny inside each particle" is about as testable as "there are more dimensions."

1. Black Hole The mass of a star in the space of an atom. Totally befuddled quantum mechanics and Einsteinium physics alike. String theory now addresses this problem. Other than that, you're mainly correct. I'm not saying it's proof, only that it's a possablility (as defined by the word theory).
By the way, do you know what the specific dimensions are in string theory, it would be interresting to know.

It does indeed, but it doesn't make much sense. Then again, the only useful things in existance are empty spaces (to take a Taoist viewpoint)

Actually empty space is not really empty its filled with...i dont want to get into this...I dont even like thinking about this shit...

Actually empty space is not really empty its filled with...i dont want to get into this...I dont even like thinking about this shit...

My point exactly. Perhaps there is more to 'empty space' than we formerly thought.

1. Black Hole The mass of a star in the space of an atom. Totally befuddled quantum mechanics and Einsteinium physics alike. String theory now addresses this problem.

But currently, String Theory does not have anywhere near enough evidence to be considered as proven. Its predictions require more precise equipment to test than we currently have.


Other than that, you're mainly correct. I'm not saying it's proof, only that it's a possablility (as defined by the word theory).

Sure, it's a possibility. According to that definition of a theory, then yes...

...along the same lines as "invisible pink unicorns push all particles along, but we can't detect them" theory.


By the way, do you know what the specific dimensions are in string theory, it would be interresting to know.

Not sure, can't help you there. As I understand, they're spatial dimensions, but just so small we can't detect them at the moment. It's definitely not something mystical like "an energy dimension."

Imagine that God not exists; We get nothing in the end
Imagine that God exist ; who not believe will get much thing in the end...

But currently, String Theory does not have anywhere near enough evidence to be considered as proven. Its predictions require more precise equipment to test than we currently have.



Sure, it's a possibility. According to that definition of a theory, then yes...

...along the same lines as "invisible pink unicorns push all particles along, but we can't detect them" theory.



Not sure, can't help you there. As I understand, they're spatial dimensions, but just so small we can't detect them at the moment. It's definitely not something mystical like "an energy dimension."
String theory is far from proven, but the scientists are working on it. At least the theory is coherant at all levels. "invisible pink unicorns push all particles along" - if you want to name the force that, go right ahead. As for the dimensions... *sigh* I guess those scientists just don't have an imagination like mine. :p

1. Black Hole The mass of a star in the space of an atom. Totally befuddled quantum mechanics and Einsteinium physics alike. String theory now addresses this problem. Other than that, you're mainly correct. I'm not saying it's proof, only that it's a possablility (as defined by the word theory).
By the way, do you know what the specific dimensions are in string theory, it would be interresting to know.
Please, do not speculate about higher-, or even lower-level physics without understanding it. You've made so many claims that seem reasonable if you don't know what the hell you're talking about. And, I just have to correct your improper terminology, einsteinium is an element. Atomic number 99, atomic weight about 252.

Please, do not speculate about higher-, or even lower-level physics without understanding it. You've made so many claims that seem reasonable if you don't know what the hell you're talking about. And, I just have to correct your improper terminology, einsteinium is an element. Atomic number 99, atomic weight about 252.

Alright, me learned friend - do you know what the 6 (or 7) other dimentions are?

Oh, and feel free to enlighten me as to exactly why I'm wrong.

A teacher says they will set a test on an unexpected day of the week. The students know it will be next week, but not which day. As such, they can rule out Friday because if they get to Thursday, they will know for certain that the test will be on Friday and it won't be unexpected. But, if that's the case, than the test can't be set on Thursday either because if they get to Wednesday and there hasn't been a test, it will definately be on Thurday because it simply cannot be unexpected on Friday, so it will definately be on Thursday. It can't be on Wednesday either though because it cannot be unexpected on either days after Wednesday, so it can't be Wednesday either... Eventually, the test cannot be set during the week at all, because every day it would be expected.

That is what the students conclude. Thus Wednesday's test comes as a complete surprise, and the teacher's statement is true.

This is just a theory I've had. It is that if you were to remove God or any other spiritual being from view and look at the world through the basis of what can or cannot be proven then I feel that you would come up with the final staement that without a supernatural being there is no proof that anything really exists. You could only prove that your mental state exists but even then you could only prove that to yourself.

Disagree? Agree? Why? Please answer but try to keep as little as possible religious based insults or personal insults to a minimum. Thank you.
this isn't your theory. this is descartes' theory.

that was the point of his half assed ontological argument in the meditations.

and theoretically, this could entirely be my imagination. maybe there is no real world outside my head (what an imaginative bitch i must be then... so many random people and so much detail...) however, if this is just something in my head, then it doesn't matter what i do, so i might as well play along.

Oh, and feel free to enlighten me as to exactly why I'm wrong.
It would be far, far easier to tell you where you're not wrong.

I will do so:
1) The fouth dimension is time

There, happy?

That is what the students conclude. Thus Wednesday's test comes as a complete surprise, and the teacher's statement is true.

Well, yes. The paradox relies on time. The students expect the test every day, but that means they don't know when it will be. (except on friday)

It would be far, far easier to tell you where you're not wrong.

I will do so:
1) The fouth dimension is time

There, happy?

Time is not a dimension

It would be far, far easier to tell you where you're not wrong.

I will do so:
1) The fouth dimension is time

There, happy?

I think I'm fencing windmills here, aren't I?
Oh well, when I've completed Yr 12 Physics, I'll get back to you.

Tell me, if you split a molecule, you get an atom, split an atom get elestron, etc, split those get a cork (funny name don't ask me), and so on. But besides that how can something come from nothing? Everything physical can be made from something smaller. So unless there's some supernatural force to create the first particles of matter, there is no such thing as existance.
1. quark
2. electron
just some very important words that you misspelled.

and so you know, massive particles were formed through pair creation. if you don't know what this is, i suggest you read up on some quantum mechanics. essentially, high energy photons can produce a pair of positive and negative particles of the same mass (momentum and energy are of course conserved) such as an electron/positron pair. due to a slight asymmetry, matter dominated over antimatter and well, here we are. and yes, there is a force in play. it's not supernatural though. it's called the electromagnetic force. (the photons are moving through a magnetic field...)

Time is not a dimension

Really? Are you sure about that? An object cannot move without the time to do it in. I'm fairly sure it's now accepted as the fourth dimension.

Time is not a dimension
yes it is.

Really? Are you sure about that? An object cannot move without the time to do it in. I'm fairly sure it's now accepted as the fourth dimension.
it is. and yes, we do move through it, though we hardly control our motion through it (we can't go backwards and can only slow it down at relativistic speeds or near an intense gravitational field...)

it is. and yes, we do move through it, though we hardly control our motion through it (we can't go backwards and can only slow it down at relativistic speeds or near an intense gravitational field...)
What's with gravity though? How can it act like this? How does Physics explain the phenomenon?

I think I'm fencing windmills here, aren't I?
Oh well, when I've completed Yr 12 Physics, I'll get back to you.
Then that is so, so sad. I haven't even taken one year of formal physics, and I know more than you. You spoke about "corks", how split atoms turn into electrons, and Einsteinium theory. All three show fundamental physical and chemical ignorance. Though I guess I could let you off the hook for quarks if you didn't act like you knew what they were. Again, to learn more on dimensional theory, read Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott. Its copyright has expired, so it is available for free over the internet.

Really? Are you sure about that? An object cannot move without the time to do it in. I'm fairly sure it's now accepted as the fourth dimension.
Okay, what are its properties?

Really? Are you sure about that? An object cannot move without the time to do it in. I'm fairly sure it's now accepted as the fourth dimension.

Yepyep. Time is a fourth dimension. To specify an object's location, you need x, y, z, and t coordinates.

yes it is.
no its not

Then that is so, so sad. I haven't even taken one year of formal physics, and I know more than you. You spoke about "corks", how split atoms turn into electrons, and Einsteinium theory. All three show fundamental physical and chemical ignorance. Though I guess I could let you off the hook for quarks if you didn't act like you knew what they were. Again, to learn more on dimensional theory, read Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott. Its copyright has expired, so it is available for free over the internet.

1. That was someone else, of course I know what a quark is (the name anyway) Same about the electrons, and you know I meant Einsteinian.

2. Neither have I, Yr 12 is a long way off.

3. Yes, I must read that.

no its not

Come on, back up with some evidence - no one believes you.

Okay, what are its properties?
Ever heard of hypercubes? I suggest you look into them.

What's with gravity though? How can it act like this? How does Physics explain the phenomenon?

It doesn't, it just describes it.

At some point down the line, there'll be a "why" question that's answered by "we don't know' (or, alternately, depending on who you ask, by "stop asking stupid questions" or "because God said so" or "that's just the way it is.")

Come on, back up with some evidence - no one believes you.

what are its properties?

Ever heard of hypercubes? I suggest you look into them.
hypercubes?...now you are making stuff up

hypercubes?...now you are making stuff up
Look it up before you jump to conclusions. I'm too lazy to explain dimensional theory right now.

what are its properties?

I think me learned friend here already answered you. What are the properties of dimensions 1,2 and 3?

Look it up before you jump to conclusions. I'm too lazy to explain dimensional theory right now.

hypercubes...doesn't that sound a bit silly to you? If physicist are going to try to make up a story about how the universe works , they should a least be a bit believable...I await the day some physicist postulates the Moe/Larry/Curly particle

Thank God I am a nihilist....

If physicist are going to try to make up a story about how the universe works , they should a least be a bit believable...

Unfortunately, the "believable" theories are wrong.

The claim that time slows down as you move faster is ludicrous. Not "believable" in any sense of the word.

But true, and verified.

In Quantum mechanics, to calculate the probability amplitude of a photon being detected in a particular place, you need to add the probability amplitude of ALL possible paths. Basically, the photon takes all possible paths, not one specific one! Completely unbelievable. Ludicrous. But supported by observations.

Of course, wave-particle duality. Particles also behave as waves - they can be diffracted by a grating, for example. Completely unbelievable, but true.

And so on.

Whether a theory agrees with our macroscopic "common sense" has been shown to be a bad indicator of it's veracity.

Unfortunately, the "believable" theories are wrong.

The claim that time slows down as you move faster is ludicrous. Not "believable" in any sense of the word.

But true, and verified.

In Quantum mechanics, to calculate the probability amplitude of a photon being detected in a particular place, you need to add the probability amplitude of ALL possible paths. Basically, the photon takes all possible paths, not one specific one! Completely unbelievable. Ludicrous. But supported by observations.

Of course, wave-particle duality. Particles also behave as waves - they can be diffracted by a grating, for example. Completely unbelievable, but true.

And so on.

Whether a theory agrees with our macroscopic "common sense" has been shown to be a bad indicator of it's veracity.


All this proves what? That God is most likely insane! What are we living in? A cartoon? Hypercubes....superstrings....Clay Aiken...oy vey

All this proves what?

That proves that complicated equations can often be simplified.

At velocities much smaller than c, Special relativity is approximately equal to Galilean relativity.

At distances much greater than the wavelength of an object, quantum effects are approximated by classical mechanics. And wavelengths are inversely proportional to planck's constant divided by momentum - something has to have a very small momentum (i.e. a really small mass or a really small velocity) for the effects to be non-negligible.

Hence, at the scales at which we commonly view nature, the effects are completely unnoticeable. Hence, what we develop as "common sense" is an approximation to reality that, as would make sense, breaks down when you tried to apply it to values near the fringes of reality where the "extra terms" in the equations matter.

That proves that complicated equations can often be simplified.

At velocities much smaller than c, Special relativity is approximately equal to Galilean relativity.

At distances much greater than the wavelength of an object, quantum effects are approximated by classical mechanics. And wavelengths are inversely proportional to planck's constant divided by momentum - something has to have a very small momentum (i.e. a really small mass or a really small velocity) for the effects to be non-negligible.

Hence, at the scales at which we commonly view nature, the effects are completely unnoticeable. Hence, what we develop as "common sense" is an approximation to reality that, as would make sense, breaks down when you tried to apply it to values near the fringes of reality where the "extra terms" in the equations matter.

Now you are just getting creepy...and I mean Lovecraftian kinda creepy

Now you are just getting creepy...and I mean Lovecraftian kinda creepy
I thought it was a rather good explination myself.

All this proves what? That God is most likely insane! What are we living in? A cartoon? Hypercubes....superstrings....Clay Aiken...oy vey

Well, I hope God's getting a damn good laugh out of it. :D

Well, I hope God's getting a damn good laugh out of it. :D
I gave up trying to figure out this stuff...a long time ago....Like I said "Thank god I am a nihilist"

Ok, fine, I will attempt to briefly explain what a hypercube is for those of you non-believers. They are also known as tesseracts. It is the four-dimensional analogue of a cube.

Go to these sites to learn a little more:
http://www1.tip.nl/~t515027/hypercube.html
http://mrl.nyu.edu/~perlin/demox/Hyper.html

What's with gravity though? How can it act like this? How does Physics explain the phenomenon?
it changes the shape of space-time. imagine space time to be a rubber sheet and imagine that the sun (or whatever massive object) is a bowling ball on the sheet. the ball will bend the rubber sheet. a black hole is analogous to something heavy enough to put a hole through the sheet.

it's general relativity.

4d is fukin weird man, like an acid trip

no its not
yes it is.

so unless you want to tell me that all my physics profs are full of shit... which they are not... how about you learn about some modern physics before you sit here and try to tell the person who is studying who is studying physics that they're wrong about rather elementary stuff.

hypercubes...doesn't that sound a bit silly to you? If physicist are going to try to make up a story about how the universe works , they should a least be a bit believable...I await the day some physicist postulates the Moe/Larry/Curly particle

Thank God I am a nihilist....
so you're thankful that you know fuck-all about things while you sit there and try to tell people who are much more informed on the subject that they're wrong.

geez.

these things make sense if you actually have the proper background in physics, which you obviously lack, but rather than educate yourself about these theories and the other theories and lead up to them and the logic that goes into them, you sit here and say that people who have devoted their lives to the study of the subject are wrong and you, who just sits there with no background in the subject are of course, right. and of course since you don't understand it, they must just be making up stories to fuck with you because that's what they're all out to do. geez. if you're going to dismiss a theory, at least learn about it rather than wallow in your ignorance and promote it as something great.

so you're thankful that you know fuck-all about things while you sit there and try to tell people who are much more informed on the subject that they're wrong.

geez.

these things make sense if you actually have the proper background in physics, which you obviously lack, but rather than educate yourself about these theories and the other theories and lead up to them and the logic that goes into them, you sit here and say that people who have devoted their lives to the study of the subject are wrong and you, who just sits there with no background in the subject are of course, right. and of course since you don't understand it, they must just be making up stories to fuck with you because that's what they're all out to do. geez. if you're going to dismiss a theory, at least learn about it rather than wallow in your ignorance and promote it as something great.


So do I have to learn Dianetics to know that it is bullshit...

So do I have to learn Dianetics to know that it is bullshit...
no, i'm saying that you obviously don't have the background to judge whether or not it is bullshit.

the fact of the matter is that the current physical theories have been tested time and time again, yet still stand up. they are most likely correct. and you don't seem to know anything about them, and pride yourself in this ignorance while proclaiming them faulty.

personally, i know fuck all about dianetics, therefore saying it is bullshit would be stupid of me, as i lack any knowledge of even the most basic principles. basically, you have to know at least something about the theory before decrying it, and priding yourself in ignorance is simply... well, retarded. honestly.

I gave up trying to figure out this stuff...a long time ago....Like I said "Thank god I am a nihilist"

Teehee... heeheehehehe teehee...

You can in no way call Time a dimension, it makes about as much sense as calling Space a dimension. The properties of Space are dimensional...you know Height, Width, Length....hence the term spatial dimensions...but Space in itself is not a dimension and niether is Time, while there might be temporal as well as spatial dimensions no one as far as i know as been able to tell us what the temporal dimensions are

You can in no way call Time a dimension, it makes about as much sense as calling Space a dimension.
Space is a dimension. We're just getting back into the whole "knowing elementary dimensional physics" thing again.

Space is a dimension. We're just getting back into the whole "knowing elementary dimensional physics" thing again.

Prove it...here in Kentucky we say the properties of Space are dimensions, now you are saying space itself is a dimension, okay space is a dimension of what?

okay space is a dimension of what?
Length, width, and depth. Just like a plane is a dimesion of length and width. And a line a dimension of length. And a point a dimension with no dimensions.

Length, width, and depth. Just like a plane is a dimesion of length and width. And a line a dimension of length. And a point a dimension with no dimensions.
No length,width and depth are spatial dimensions, they are dimensions of space not the other way around

No length,width and depth are spatial dimensions, they are dimensions of space not the other way around
So length, width, and depth are not the defining traits of space? By your reasoning, no other dimension may exist outside of the three dimensional one we perceive.

So length, width, and depth are not the defining traits of space? By your reasoning, no other dimension may exist outside of the three dimensional one we perceive.

Well, that's not suprising, since we can't perceive it. As members of western society though, we already understand one dimention of time as we think of it as linear - much like the first dimension of space (lines). Yes?

So length, width, and depth are not the defining traits of space? By your reasoning, no other dimension may exist outside of the three dimensional one we perceive.
I meant...length,width and depth are spatial dimensions, they are dimensions of space not the other way around. sorry typos and stuff ...no was left over from something i deleted....

Gosh. I wish I could save each and every sinlge page of this stuff. Like look through it and there might be at least 4 or 5 different perspectives. Great point's everyone. Although I think we've just ended up right at the begining as with most arguements, that most things can be biased or opinion based. Kinda like people's belief in God. You can't actually 'prove' God exists by looking just for him. You have to look at the effects of an existance of something beyond complete comprehension. Sort of like gravity or magnatism. You can't actually see it but you can see the effects of it.

Still, I would like to congratulate all who participated and if youwant to continue with this topic, by all means do. Use this page if you want. Thanks to all my fellow debators.

We've got no clue! But we know it happened, because we can observe that things exist.

But are you sure there are things? Isn't the word "things" just a cognative construct used to discribe someones perception something they believe to exist as part of reality that may or may not be the same as that of another individual's perception of reality? Why aren't they thungs or spings? Can I even say that we share a perception of reality without being a part of your mind. All I know for sure is that we describe it using the same or similar words. :p :p ;) Just playing devil's advocate...

But are you sure there are things? Isn't the word "things" just a cognative construct used to discribe someones perception something they believe to exist as part of reality that may or may not be the same as that of another individual's perception of reality? Why aren't they thungs or spings? Can I even say that we share a perception of reality without being a part of your mind. All I know for sure is that we describe it using the same or similar words. :p :p ;) Just playing devil's advocate...

Oh, of course it's "possible" that there isn't a reality and it's all just a construct of our minds. I can't "prove" that reality exists.

I'm not sure what your point is though.

My point when I made that statement is that even though we don't know HOW something happened, that does not mean it didn't happen. I think I was referring to the Big Bang - we don't know WHY it happened, but we can show that it DID happen.

That is, assuming that our senses don't systematically deceive us. That's an assumption we always make - that our perceptions of the world have some relation to reality. If we don't make that assumption, we can't really get anywhere - so we make that assumption because that allows us to do convenient things such as make scientific theories that appear to describe the world and have lots of useful and interesting consequences.

Oh, of course it's "possible" that there isn't a reality and it's all just a construct of our minds. I can't "prove" that reality exists.

I'm not sure what your point is though.

My point when I made that statement is that even though we don't know HOW something happened, that does not mean it didn't happen. I think I was referring to the Big Bang - we don't know WHY it happened, but we can show that it DID happen.

That is, assuming that our senses don't systematically deceive us. That's an assumption we always make - that our perceptions of the world have some relation to reality. If we don't make that assumption, we can't really get anywhere - so we make that assumption because that allows us to do convenient things such as make scientific theories that appear to describe the world and have lots of useful and interesting consequences.

The point is that proof is a fleeting notion, not easily grasped outside of some real, objective, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent definer of reality. At best we are all grabbing at different parts of the elephant blindly, on thinking he has a rope(tail), one thinking she has a fan(ear), one thinking he has a tree trunk (Leg), and one thinking she has a hose (trunk).

To say that the big bang happened is no more or less defensable than me saying that God exists. You interpret the evidence you have seen as suggesting this reality. I interpret the evidence I have seen as suggesting a different one. Only if and when objective reality is actually know can we know who is right. Give that science is built on assumptions, which are little more than a belief structure, albeit an organized one, it is just as likely to come to fallacious conclusions as the rest of us with our religious assumptions.

You can in no way call Time a dimension, it makes about as much sense as calling Space a dimension. The properties of Space are dimensional...you know Height, Width, Length....hence the term spatial dimensions...but Space in itself is not a dimension and niether is Time, while there might be temporal as well as spatial dimensions no one as far as i know as been able to tell us what the temporal dimensions are
umm... correction.

one spatial dimension is length, another spatial dimension is height, another is width. in a static situation (i.e. nothing is moving) you need three coordinates in order to define the location of a particle. in a non-static situation, you need four dimensions, the three spatial dimensions and one temporal in order to define the location of a particle.

space is defined in three dimensions, time is defined in one. all four are dimensions though.

Well, I'm sure glad we answered that.

umm... correction.

one spatial dimension is length, another spatial dimension is height, another is width. in a static situation (i.e. nothing is moving) you need three coordinates in order to define the location of a particle. in a non-static situation, you need four dimensions, the three spatial dimensions and one temporal in order to define the location of a particle.

space is defined in three dimensions, time is defined in one. all four are dimensions though.

Yes, but what do you do with things that take on both partical and wavelength forms?

So length, width, and depth are not the defining traits of space? By your reasoning, no other dimension may exist outside of the three dimensional one we perceive.
but we perceive four dimensions.

just as the z coordinate keeps everything from happening on the same plane, time keeps everything from happening at once. we do perceive it (do you remember what happened two days ago? you perceive your motion through time as well as your motion through space. you just can't control your motion through time)

Well, that's not suprising, since we can't perceive it. As members of western society though, we already understand one dimention of time as we think of it as linear - much like the first dimension of space (lines). Yes?
except that like space, time is also curved by gravity. for instance, if you were to orbit a black hole, time would pass more slowly for you due to the curvature of space time. hell, out own sun curves space slightly, as evidenced by gravitational lensing observed at solar eclipses.

Yes, but what do you do with things that take on both partical and wavelength forms?
you mean everything?

even a thrown baseball has a wavelength, it's not noticible though.

i don't see what that had to do with my post... a particle with a wave motion still oscillates in time, moves through time, et c. if you're referring to the uncertainty principle, then it is impossible to properly define either a particle's position or its speed (well, momentum, but they're proportionate p=mv) however, this does not mean that the particle does not move through space during an interval of time, it simply means that you do not know how or where it moves. it is possible to locate it at several time intervals, however detection methods have a tendency to change the momentum...

No, but without a supernatural being some laws that scientists have created contradict other theories such as the big bang which is atheism.
no it's not. that's ludicrous.

the big bang theory makes no statements about what happened before the big bang, nor does it take into account the existence or non existence of a diety.

you mean everything?

even a thrown baseball has a wavelength, it's not noticible though.

i don't see what that had to do with my post... a particle with a wave motion still oscillates in time, moves through time, et c. if you're referring to the uncertainty principle, then it is impossible to properly define either a particle's position or its speed (well, momentum, but they're proportionate p=mv) however, this does not mean that the particle does not move through space during an interval of time, it simply means that you do not know how or where it moves. it is possible to locate it at several time intervals, however detection methods have a tendency to change the momentum...

Sorry, I shouldn't have distracted you from your ongoing conversation. I just had to get you going on a meaningless tangent. Again, I apologize.

Oh, one more meaningless question. I've only dabled in physics so I don't actually know the answer to this question or even if there is a known one. If you can't tell where the particle is at all times, how can you be sure you have the same particle at one measurment and the next?

Yes and the human body is a masterpiece (or at least was). So was the Earth. In some aspects it still is. It's the perfect distance from the sun to support life, perfect tilt to allow seasons, humans have almost two of every organ, they can life with one kidney, lung, 2/3 of a liver, half a brain, ribs can have parts remoed and they grown back, we think and understand things, we design things, we are unique enough to understand our begining and to choose whether or not to accept fact. We, the Earth and the inhabitants of the Earth were designed for something, so there must be a designer. The designer however is not at fault, we are. We sin, ruin life, destroy species, we are the problem.
1. the earth's tilt shifts between 21 and 25 degrees, we don't have a "perfect tilt" not that the tilt of the earth really has much effect on the average global temperature, it has more effect on how extreme the weather is than anything.

2. actually, there is quite a range where life could be supported. if mars was more massive, it could support life as well. however, due to its small mass, it has lost much of its atmosphere, and since water cannot exist as a liquid at such low pressure, it can only sublimate.

3. we are most likely hardly unique. do you have any idea how many stars like our sun there are? how many planets like ours? we're most certainly not the only "intelligent" beings out there.

furthermore, it appears that your whole skeptical argument is, like descartes, just an attempt to "prove" the existence of god.

furthremore, the big bang does not really violate the laws of thermodynamics. for one thing, the laws of thermodynamics only concern our universe. since before the big bang, there was no universe, it's a little hard to make laws to account for that. furthermore, it is not certain whether there was nothing before the universe popped into existence, for all we know, universe formation may occur like star formation in a multiverse... and i couldn't make sense of your matter and energy thing. they both don't have to exist at once. for the first while after the big bang, all that there was was radiation... then through pair formation (learn some quantum mechanics) massive particles began to form.

Sorry, I shouldn't have distracted you from your ongoing conversation. I just had to get you going on a meaningless tangent. Again, I apologize.

Oh, one more meaningless question. I've only dabled in physics so I don't actually know the answer to this question or even if there is a known one. If you can't tell where the particle is at all times, how can you be sure you have the same particle at one measurment and the next?
well, that's alright, i was just confused because you quoted me and said something that wasn't related to what you quoted... it's quite alright, i enjoy discussing physics.

as to your question: well, if you had a chamber that was pure oxygen and you put one particle of argon, then you coudl tell that that one argon particle is the same all the way through, as there is only one. or if you were to vacuum out a chamber and make it so there was one particle... i'm not sure how difficult this is. i know it is possible to get individual electrons moving through somewhere... however making a perfect vacuum is another matter.

how can you be sure you have the same particle at one measurment and the next?

Actually, according to some principles in quantum physics, you can't.

If there's only one particle, then yes, you can, since there's only one.

But if you have, say, two electrons interacting, you can't say "this one bounced off this way" and "this one bounced off that way" - we can only say "two came in like this," "two come out like that."

If they're truly identical, then it doesn't matter which one went where; if they're NOT truly identical, then we can use whatever the difference between them is to identify them.