NationStates Jolt Archive

It should be multiple choice. *nod*

Edit: This Thread is Mine Now! You will Bow to Me! Hahaaa!!! :)

Ugh. I'll go with none of the above. The big bang wasn't an accident, but it was a natural process. Why have theists defined accident to mean anything that a conscious entity didn't directly cause?

I have come across many posts by NSGers saying they don't believe this, or they don't believe that, etc., etc. about the origins of the universe.

I am curious to hear what NSGers DO believe about how the universe came to be, so I am creating a poll with four options:

1. It has always been here
2. It is not here; it is an illusion
3. It came from nothing accidentally
4. It came from nothing supernaturally

If you choose 1, 2, or 3, I ask you to explain in further, scientific detail, why you believe the option you selected.

And no, bashing creationism/creationists/the Bible/any other religious book does not count as scientific proof/explanation of your theory, nor does any alleged bigotry on the part of anyone who believes different from you, so please refrain from any of these.

Nor does anybody's failure to understand scientific terms/methods count as scientific proof/explanation of your theory, so I also ask you to refrain from citing any of these as such proof/explanation.

Who knows? I really don't think it's possible to know. I put only a little more faith in science than in religion.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1532964361

:)

It should be multiple choice. *nod*

Edit: This Thread is Mine Now! You will Bow to Me! Hahaaa!!! :)

I do not profess to know how the universe came to be, but I certainly DO profess to be its rightful ruler! And no, Lunatic Goofballs, I will NOT bow to you. On the contrary, YOU shall bow to ME!

Now KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

(*shoots Lunatic Goofballs with eye lasers*) :D

Can you clarify the question, are you talking about the universe, or just the matter in it?

I do not profess to know how the universe came to be, but I certainly DO profess to be its rightful ruler! And no, Lunatic Goofballs, I will NOT bow to you. On the contrary, YOU shall bow to ME!

Now KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

(*shoots Lunatic Goofballs with eye lasers*) :D

*temporarily disables your eye lasers with a well tossed banana cream pie and vanishes in a sudden puff of cotton candy scented smoke*

Being the Official NSG God has it's perks. :)

Clearly, that Lunatic Goofballs character used his time warping ability and went back and started the whole thing.

Hopefully we'll find out someday. Personally, I think there were an infinite number of universes before this one and will be an infinite number after.

Can you clarify the question, are you talking about the universe, or just the matter in it?

Both.

Hopefully we'll find out someday. Personally, I think there were an infinite number of universes before this one and will be an infinite number after.

There's a reasonable chance that there are an infinite number of universes right now too. *nod*

Clearly, that Lunatic Goofballs character used his time warping ability and went back and started the whole thing.

Does this universe look like my work to you?

I can do better. :p

It was; It is; I am

There's a reasonable chance that there are an infinite number of universes right now too. *nod*

Actually, it looks like that is becoming the preferred explanation. That always made more sense to me than the Copenhagen interpretation.

The only thing I am sure of is that the answer is beyond the comprehension of humankind in our present state of evolution.

I'm OK with that, but clearly I'm among the minority there as so many insist upon knowing or seeking the 'answer'.

Clearly, that Lunatic Goofballs character used his time warping ability and went back and started the whole thing.

Uh, no, his post just got onto the thread before mine did. I started the thread.

Does this universe look like my work to you?

No, it doesn't; THAT is why I don't believe in the deity of Lunatic Goofballs.
:D

Who knows? I really don't think it's possible to know. I put only a little more faith in science than in religion.

What has always amazed me is .. where can space end? What can end it? Nothing.. at least nothing within our thinking. Even if its a big ass circle (everything revolves or sum shit).. what's beyond that?

No, it doesn't; THAT is why I don't believe in the deity of Lunatic Goofballs.
:D

I'm new to the post. There will be quite a bit of restructuring to do *nod*

In the beginning, there was this big thing, wich exploded.
Then Kirk Cameron had sex with a Banana.

One and two are not mutually exclusive.

I posit...the Omniverse.

I love these types of questions.. it makes us think beyond ourselves ....or beyond our antiquated (sp?) world I should say.

I love these types of questions.. it makes us think beyond ourselves ....or beyond our antiquated (sp?) world I should say.

I'm reading a book on this subject that, I'll be the first to admit, I completely don't understand - but what I'm getting out of it is that it's very likely that many universes inhabit the same space as the one we see - and that's the essential point, what we see defines how we deduce what the universe is like when it's very likely that we don't see the vast majority of what's out there, or in here, or however we want to say it.

It's people like me, rehashing crap they don't understand in bars and cafes around the world, that cause such confusion.

It was; It is; I am

Tat tvam asi.

Then Kirk Cameron had sex with a Banana.

I thought Kirk Cameron's safety word in sex was "Banana" !
Maybe memory doesn't serve properly.
:confused:

I posit...the Omniverse.

Already guessed that one back when i read about the Copenhagen Interpretation, about 12 years ago.
I didn't want to say it here.
But yay for you! :p

Now i'll actually deal with the subject matter .... you might find this of interest.
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/skeptic13-2_Kuhn.pdf
It's worth the full perusal, trust me.

I'm reading a book on this subject that, I'll be the first to admit, I completely don't understand - but what I'm getting out of it is that it's very likely that many universes inhabit the same space as the one we see - and that's the essential point, what we see defines how we deduce what the universe is like when it's very likely that we don't see the vast majority of what's out there, or in here, or however we want to say it.

It's people like me, rehashing crap they don't understand in bars and cafes around the world, that cause such confusion.


I'm no astrologer, astronomer, mathmatician etc.. I just have my common sense, my imagination (and a mad case of hicccups atm) and what various things I have learned.

I believe there are things that we don't even have the capability of understanding right now. None of our science can touch it. Because not even our imagination can touch it.


Those before us that have understood the celestial (if thats the right word) things.. are amazing. And if they were then, they are now. It's just a matter of being heard and believed. Galileo comes to mind.

Tat tvam asi.


I had to look that up. =) And on wiki "The neutrality of this article is disputed."

I will see what the differences are.. and look around for info on those.

I had to look that up. =)Worth it, imnsho. :)

And on wiki "The neutrality of this article is disputed."To be expected, really ... both from a Skeptic source *and* discussing the persuasion of the universe. :)

I will see what the differences are.. and look around for info on those.
You know what's funny? I hit this thread right around the same time as Brian Greene showed up in "The Last Mimzy" (on my tele)

Well.. SOMETHING has always been here. It certainly isn't the "universe" as we know it, but it is impossible for something to come from nothing, so we must assume that something has always been.

but it is impossible for something to come from nothing,
Wrong. Matter/antimatter pairs come into existence out of nothing all the time.

Wrong. Matter/antimatter pairs come into existence out of nothing all the time.

it comes about from something.. meaning not that that something directly has anything to do with it coming about.. but it comes in to existense because of something else existing

man! i love talking about this .. I can talk like a nut.. without actually being a nut.

Not when I last checked.

...except to a quantum physicist, nothing is something.

it comes about from something.. meaning not that that something directly has anything to do with it coming about.. but it comes in to existense because of something else existing

Not when I last checked.

I have come across many posts by NSGers saying they don't believe this, or they don't believe that, etc., etc. about the origins of the universe.

I am curious to hear what NSGers DO believe about how the universe came to be, so I am creating a poll with four options:

1. It has always been here
2. It is not here; it is an illusion
3. It came from nothing accidentally
4. It came from nothing supernaturally

If you choose 1, 2, or 3, I ask you to explain in further, scientific detail, why you believe the option you selected.


And no, bashing creationism/creationists/the Bible/any other religious book does not count as scientific proof/explanation of your theory, nor does any alleged bigotry on the part of anyone who believes different from you, so please refrain from any of these.

Nor does anybody's failure to understand scientific terms/methods count as scientific proof/explanation of your theory, so I also ask you to refrain from citing any of these as such proof/explanation.



It is not here, it is an illusion. If we think of the universe as a "static", and of our senses as recievers, we find that what we can see is just a very very small part of the world. Our brain constantly analyzes the information our senses recieve, and try to find patterns, thus automatically sorting away information before processing it in our "mind" at a conscious level. Seen from this perspective, there is no "physical" world. There is no physical particles, or even constants of nature. It is all our way of trying to understand the world. Sure, gravity exists, but it isnt something that is "hard-coded" into the very core of the universe. There are countless of particles in the universe that constantly interact with each other, and apparently it is more likely for these interactions to stabilize as predictable systems once they randomly reach such a state in their interaction. Since all particles, according to quantum physics, are in a way entangled to each other, this stable systemised state would then apply to the whole universe, and not just to a spatially defineable region of space.

So, if we define "real" as what we theorethically, in one way or another can interact with through conscious choice, there is no real reality but only our interpretations of this gigantic "field" of static. And yes, this field of "static" is in itself a very very illogical place that at least according to quantum physics is ruled by true randomness.

So, scientifically enough explanation for my choice?

what i think is that what is not known is not known.
and i have no problem with what is not known being that way.

it MAY have always been there
it MAY have been created deliberately, or at least some sort of self fulfilling process set in motion deliberately
it could even have begun with the defication of a mutant space goat after having eaten the previous one.

real science doesn't cast its conclusions in concrete, they are always tenative and subject to review in light of further and later evidence. it just makes damd sure it has damed good reasons for the ones it tells anyone about.

thus they always make some sense in light of what is currently known, even if later they might be completely revised or replaced

as opposed to the arbitrary and adamant assumptions of belief, which are words based upon words based upon the speculation that something or someone somewhere is or was infallable. not a notion all of us find entirely compelling, however real we may also have spiritual experiences.

nothing, outside of human society itself, and scarcely even that, is limit by human ignorance.

=^^=
.../\...

Wrong. Matter/antimatter pairs come into existence out of nothing all the time.No energy is created or destroyed in these events. i.e. the energy of the matter/anti-matter pair has to exist beforehand.

There's a reasonable chance that there are an infinite number of universes right now too. *nod*
Actually, it looks like that is becoming the preferred explanation.Only in popular science and sci-fi, afaik.

That always made more sense to me than the Copenhagen interpretation.It makes for a better story, but it really doesn't make sense to reify an infinity of universes.
It may fit the mathematical model of quantum-physics just as well, but that's no reason to think either of those interpretations are actually what happens. 'Creating' universes we can't see, can never see, seems a bit fanciful to me. Never mind where you put them or where you get the energy from.

Some super being(probably LG) fapped, and this is the result.

The Universe that we're familiar with may well have a 'start' and even an 'end' (a bit like the Earth has North and South poles beyond which there is no 'more northerly/southerly point', but no 'edge of the world') but as a 'transtemporal whole' has 'always' (in a sense that works outside and beyond the arrows of time that we're all used to) existed.

Or, alternately, our Universe arose as a blip within a 'meta-Universe' without bound or age, or perhaps the 'palce' with that propery is the the next level out, or the one beyond that, but that sort of thing tends to get esoteric and unprovable (well, for the likes of me). Such a solution would have a degree of elegance to it, though, IMHO. YMMV.

Ugh. I'll go with none of the above. The big bang wasn't an accident, but it was a natural process. Why have theists defined accident to mean anything that a conscious entity didn't directly cause?

Because questions are more important than answers. ;)

I have come across many posts by NSGers saying they don't believe this, or they don't believe that, etc., etc. about the origins of the universe.

I am curious to hear what NSGers DO believe about how the universe came to be, so I am creating a poll with four options:

1. It has always been here
2. It is not here; it is an illusion
3. It came from nothing accidentally
4. It came from nothing supernaturally

Like all humans, I lack sufficient information to answer this question. Unlike most humans, I admit my lack of knowledge and I decline to make something up.

Making something up is so much more fun ;)

Actually, I think it has always been there and that there was nothing before the big bang, because I think the concept of "before" did not exist at the start of the big bang. Time is approaching zero along an asymptote and is not simply an extrapolation of our perception of time, or something. Relativity theory could probably back me up on that one...

It is true. Time began with the big bang, therefore the only way there can be a cause (causation being temporal in nature) is if an external timeline existed. This is true for Theistic and Atheistic answers.

If there is an external timeline (that is a timeline outside our universe) there must also be an external universe (that is a universe outside our universe).
Therefore the multiple universe theory is nescesary, and we can progress further and use the anthropic principle to explain why this universe has life in it.

Then universes may exist within our own. More on that later.

Alternatively if there is no external timeline (as there must have been for the 'first' universe ... if there was one!) then there can be no cause of the universe (ergo a divine being did not cause it). However it does still allow the existence of an atheistic universe:

[The following is a personal theory. No experimental evidence has been used.]

Assume the probability of the existance of the universe is 1 in X. for those of you who remember high-school probability this means the chance of the universe existing is the same as rolling a 1 on a X sided dice*, where X could be 1,000,000,000 or it could be 3, or any other number.

Now if this dice* were rolled X times, 1 would probably come up. Therefore if X chances for a universe existed, a universe would probably exist.

If this dice* were rolled an infinate number of times until 1 came up, the 1 is certain to come up. Thus given infinate oppertunities, no matter how unlikely, the universe is guarenteed to come into existence.

But how long would it take to roll this dice until 1 came up? Because time does not exist, it would happen infinate times in 0 seconds. Thus the universe is destined to begin.

So there are two options: either there is time outside this universe or there is not. The former allows (but does not require) a divine force, the second does not. Therefore to a theist, only option 1 is possible.

Now, as I promissed, I shall discuss where other universes may exist in this universe, based on option 1.

The Big Bang begins with a singularity. A singularity is an extreeme. This is where science as we know it can break down. Just as special rules come in to play at extreeme speed (i.e. lightspeed) so to do they come into play with extreeme density (aka a singularity).

A singularity is where matter is compressed into a point, that is, an area of zero cubic centimetres. Thus the density = mass/0. A divide zero error.

Even if the mass = 0 you have 0/0, which is any number (as shown in red):

Zero divided by anything is ZERO
Anything divided by itself is ONE
Anything divided by zero is INFINATE

But also in a circle C=2πr. Thus π=C/2r. If r=0, then 2r=0 and C=0. Finally we find π=0/0

Indeed any number = 0/0, because:
0 times X = 0
[Divide both sides by 0]
X = 0/0 where X=any number

Thus the density can have any value. As this expands the density reduces, and to compensate matter must come to be. BANG.

So where do we find this singularity? Where is matter crushed into 0 dimensions? BLACK HOLES! The birth of a black hole is the birth of a universe, invisible to us as it exists "elsewhere" or because it is infinately smaller than our own, and resides in the singularity. But that is confusing. Lets just say that it gets bigger on the inside, but remains the same 0 dimensions on the outside [think Dr. Who's TARDIS].

So there is a long explaination of my views on the topic. I hope they make sense.

I also believe it is impossible to know what is the true history of the universe. It requires traveling beyond and before the universe, and I doubt any time machine could make that journey. But we can form a good hypothesis.

To conclude, I dont believe any of the four points cover my option.
1. I do not think the universe has always existed. It had a start. There may not be anything prior to that, so it may have existed 'forever' in one sense, but not infinately.
2. I do not think the universe is an illusion. Solipsism is hard to disprove, as all evidence may be an illusion, but if i'm wrong it doesn't matter. It's not a real debate...it's an illusion too!
4. I do not think there is a divine being. No matter how complicated (and thus unlikely) life, the universe, or anything else is its creator must be more complicated (and thus unlikely).
3. I do not think it was an accident, any more than 1+1 =2 is an accident or 2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O is an accident. An accident is unintended. If there is nothing to intend it, then there can be nothing to unintend it. Ergo it is not an accident.

It is not 1, 2, 3 or 4. It is merely a process. It merely follows the laws of nature. How did those laws get there? If laws are abstract entities, then they are not spatiotemporal. So laws could exist even if spacetime doesn't.

*[Yes, I know the singular of dice should be die, but to avoid confusion I stick whith the less poetic plural form at all times. I hate writing dice for the singular it too, but I also hate explaining the point of grammar in an otherwise unrelated talk.]

My theory is that G-d set off the Big Bang. And I do believe that the origin of the universe can be known and understood. In fact, I believe knowing and understanding the origin of the universe falls under my future job description (I'm an astrophysics major).

Anything divided by zero is INFINATE

And now a word from our news monster:
http://www.pbones.com/images/blobimages/20061129morbo.gif
DIVIDING BY ZERO DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

Thank you Morbo.

My theory is that G-d set off the Big Bang. And I do believe that the origin of the universe can be known and understood. In fact, I believe knowing and understanding the origin of the universe falls under my future job description (I'm an astrophysics major).
I hope that you're early on in your undergrad.

Incidentally, not all astrophysics majors end up studying the origin of the universe, that's only part of it.

I never said astrophysics does not try to find the answers, but it hasn't so far (there is no definitive argument for or against a god/goddess' existence as of yet).

I just don't think it will be solved. I don't think the data of "pre"-bang (which may not actually exist) will enter the universe. Just my opinion.

And no, divinding by zero doesn't work that way.

It doesn't work fullstop/period.

But anything can happen. the laws of mathematics break down. Mathematics is the basis of imperial Science. The point is that we reach an extreeme, and the $#!+ hits the fan.

I'm reading a book on this subject that, I'll be the first to admit, I completely don't understand - but what I'm getting out of it is that it's very likely that many universes inhabit the same space as the one we see - and that's the essential point, what we see defines how we deduce what the universe is like when it's very likely that we don't see the vast majority of what's out there, or in here, or however we want to say it.

It's people like me, rehashing crap they don't understand in bars and cafes around the world, that cause such confusion.

Out of curiosity, which book are you reading?

No energy is created or destroyed in these events. i.e. the energy of the matter/anti-matter pair has to exist beforehand.

In matter/antimatter pair production due to quantum fluctuations in the void (the |0> state!) energy and mass spring into existance from absolute nothing. Total energy/mass conservation and total momentum conservation are, at least locally, violated.

No, an antiparticle doesn't have negative mass. Or negative kinetic energy, either.

No energy is created or destroyed in these events. i.e. the energy of the matter/anti-matter pair has to exist beforehand.

Not true. Conservation can be (and frequently is) violated over short time spans. Particle/anti-particle pairs are popping in and out of existence constantly, with no discernible source of the energy it generally takes to produce those particles.

I have no fucking clue. I don't particularly care to know either. I'm content with knowing the universe exists.

I have no fucking clue. I don't particularly care to know either. I'm content with knowing the universe exists.

But does it? How do you know you're not a brain in a jar, man. Or, like, someone's dream, you know?


Man that's some good shit......I'm fucking hungry though.

Out of curiosity, which book are you reading?

You're not going to be impressed - it's called Please, Mr Einstein by Jean Claude Carriere.

You're not going to be impressed - it's called Please, Mr Einstein by Jean Claude Carriere.

I actually haven't heard of it, but it sounds Popular Physics more than anything. Unfortunately there aren't many good popular physics books dealing with brane cosmology, but I'd recommend Michio Kaku's Hyperspace as a good place to start, as much as I loathed the book for it's lack of mathematical rigor.

In matter/antimatter pair production due to quantum fluctuations in the void (the |0> state!) energy and mass spring into existance from absolute nothing. Total energy/mass conservation and total momentum conservation are, at least locally, violated.

No, an antiparticle doesn't have negative mass. Or negative kinetic energy, either.

Just to clarify, and I've had to say this before on NSG and it's getting a little annoying that people don't know this basic little fact:

The only difference between a particle and its antiparticle is their charge, which are direct opposites of one another. Thus an electron has a mass m-sub-e, spin 1/2, and charge -1, while a positron has mass m-sub-e, spin 1/2, and charge +1.

I hope that you're early on in your undergrad.

Incidentally, not all astrophysics majors end up studying the origin of the universe, that's only part of it.

Speaking of which, how's year 1 of grad school going? Have you picked out a concentration?

I actually haven't heard of it, but it sounds Popular Physics more than anything. Unfortunately there aren't many good popular physics books dealing with brane cosmology, but I'd recommend Michio Kaku's Hyperspace as a good place to start, as much as I loathed the book for it's lack of mathematical rigor.

Actually I've read a bunch, including Martin Rees' Just 6 numbers as an example - doesn't mean I understand them, they give me the big words and names I need to win arguments in pubs.

This one is much easier, a kind of Sophie's Choice of physics - still don't understand it :)

Because I think, feel, and do. I smell, I see, I hear, I feel.

If you don't think the universe exists just give yourself a paper cut- those hurt like a bitch. You'll know you're real then.

Ah, but how do you know that your very senses, your very means of perception, isn't an illusion unto itself? That you exist solely as a mental reality with illusory stimuli giving you illusory data about and illusory universe?

Generally, U.E. gets it almost right... but... two things...


Indeed any number = 0/0, because:
0 times X = 0
[Divide both sides by 0]
X = 0/0 where X=any number

AIEEE!!!!
Repeat with us...
THOU SHALT NOT DIVIDE BY ZERO!!!
A multiplication group allows no inversion of its operation for its zero element!
(see Serge Lang, Linear Algebra, for the formal definition of groups, iirc chapter 13)


So where do we find this singularity? Where is matter crushed into 0 dimensions? BLACK HOLES!
...according to general relativity, yes. According to quantum mechanics, even black holes (not event horizons, the "singularities") cannot have zero volume. So, their mass density isn't infinite. It's just "dense enough". (see Penrose and Hawking for the quantum theory of black holes)

But does it? How do you know you're not a brain in a jar, man. Or, like, someone's dream, you know?


Man that's some good shit......I'm fucking hungry though.

Because I think, feel, and do. I smell, I see, I hear, I feel.

If you don't think the universe exists just give yourself a paper cut- those hurt like a bitch. You'll know you're real then.

Actually I've read a bunch, including Martin Rees' Just 6 numbers as an example - doesn't mean I understand them, they give me the big words and names I need to win arguments in pubs.

This one is much easier, a kind of Sophie's Choice of physics - still don't understand it :)

I wouldn't worry. I'm in my third year of undergrad, taking Quantum Mechanics a year ahead of when I should be, and no one in the class understands it. I've heard it said that if you think you understand higher level physics, you're doing it wrong.

...according to general relativity, yes. According to quantum mechanics, even black holes (not event horizons, the "singularities") cannot have zero volume. So, their mass density isn't infinite. It's just "dense enough". (see Penrose and Hawking for the quantum theory of black holes)

It's worth noting that nowhere in the formulation for black holes does the concept of a 0-volume appear. In fact in order for a black hole to form, the spherical radius of an object merely has to be below its Schwarszchild (I know I horribly mangled that) radius, a quantity largely dependent on the object's mass.

The OP's question is confusing; not sure what exactly is being asked...

Big bang?

Because I think, feel, and do. I smell, I see, I hear, I feel.

If you don't think the universe exists just give yourself a paper cut- those hurt like a bitch. You'll know you're real then.

Brain in a jar. All those sensations are you brain interpreting chemical and electrical signals. In theory, it would be possible for those signals to be faked.

Observation implying existence. Just because you see it, doesn't mean it's real. See: hallucination.

"Personally, I think..."

How does one even begin to justify having a personal opinion on a subject like that, where the question itself hasn't even been defined?

One is always free (well, in the West, at least) to formulate opinions, but there are times when the only logical course is to reserve judgement.

I was thinking about going off on a rant here about how our media-culture has turned to valuing loud but unsupported opinions over open, uncommitted minds, but then I thought, what would be the point?

42.

Ah, but how do you know that your very senses, your very means of perception, isn't an illusion unto itself? That you exist solely as a mental reality with illusory stimuli giving you illusory data about and illusory universe?

Brain in a jar. All those sensations are you brain interpreting chemical and electrical signals. In theory, it would be possible for those signals to be faked.

Observation implying existence. Just because you see it, doesn't mean it's real. See: hallucination.

Nope. I know the world is real. Existence is real. If you want to delude yourself and think of everything as a figment of your imagination, that's fine. I know I'm real.

It's worth noting that nowhere in the formulation for black holes does the concept of a 0-volume appear. In fact in order for a black hole to form, the spherical radius of an object merely has to be below its Schwarszchild (I know I horribly mangled that) radius, a quantity largely dependent on the object's mass.

I really think I remember that general relativity allows for an infinite curvature of the spacetime - hence 0 volume in black holes.
Anyway, you're right: 0 volume is nowhere NECESSARY for black holes to exist.

(Schwarzschild... you only inverted the zs).

Nope. I know the world is real. Existence is real. If you want to delude yourself and think of everything as a figment of your imagination, that's fine. I know I'm real.

That is, you DEFINE "reality" that way.

Nope. I know the world is real. Existence is real. If you want to delude yourself and think of everything as a figment of your imagination, that's fine. I know I'm real.

But how do you know? I mean, you can say it over and over and over, but that doesn't prove anything. But sure, if you can suppress any stray thought you have that goes against your pre-defined world view, then good luck with that. Enjoy your disconnect from the reality you don't dare question.

But how do you know? I mean, you can say it over and over and over, but that doesn't prove anything. But sure, if you can suppress any stray thought you have that goes against your pre-defined world view, then good luck with that. Enjoy your disconnect from the reality you don't dare question.

Well if there is no reality how would I be disconnected from it? :p

Well if there is no reality how would I be disconnected from it? :p

There is a reality, we just can't be sure that it's real.

Brain in a jar. All those sensations are you brain interpreting chemical and electrical signals. In theory, it would be possible for those signals to be faked.


David Deutsch pretty much demolished Solipsism.
I can't even begin to sum up his theories, but I recall that one key was that in order for the mind to be Faked, accurately and convincingly, you need a Faker of huge capability to generate the very detailed and self consistent but fake information. This "information generator" cannot be anything less complex than the universe itself.

By analogy, if this were a videogame, the videogame would have to include every possible feedback for every possible test of reality I could conceive. The designer would not know which rock I intended to pick up or where I intended to throw it. Or break it, or or smell it, or otherwise examine or interact with it. The information database would actually have to be larger than a real universe it is trying to model.

If there is more information required for the model than the real thing, Occam says the real thing is the real thing.

The current issue of Discover also slams Solispsism.

David Deutsch pretty much demolished Solipsism.
I can't even begin to sum up his theories, but I recall that one key was that in order for the mind to be Faked, accurately and convincingly, you need a Faker of huge capability to generate the very detailed and self consistent but fake information. This "information generator" cannot be anything less complex than the universe itself.
And? Why is it impossible for the universe as we know it to be simulated?

By analogy, if this were a videogame, the videogame would have to include every possible feedback for every possible test of reality I could conceive. The designer would not know which rock I intended to pick up or where I intended to throw it. Or break it, or or smell it, or otherwise examine or interact with it. The information database would actually have to be larger than a real universe it is trying to model.
Since your brain is wired to this incomprehensibly powerful computer then it does know which rock you intend to pick up and where you intend to throw it, within only a fraction of a second of you knowing it yourself.

If there is more information required for the model than the real thing, Occam says the real thing is the real thing.
Occam's Razor proves nothing and never did and was never intended to. If Occam is dead then I'm sure he turns over in his grave every time someone claims that the most simple explanation IS true because of his razor.

The current issue of Discover also slams Solispsism.

The what now?

Oh, people, please, don't argue with Trollgaard on this again.

For the record, while it's quite possible that everything I perceive is faked, I see that as ultimately irrelevant. If I cannot ever perceive the "true reality" or see beyond this "existence" anyway, why should I worry about it?

Occam's Razor proves nothing and never did and was never intended to. If Occam is dead then I'm sure he turns over in his grave every time someone claims that the most simple explanation IS true because of his razor.



Not to mention people also almost always forget the caveat part of the statement: The simplest explanation with the most evidence.

Oh, people, please, don't argue with Trollgaard on this again.
Oh, but it's so much fun to erode the foundations of his world view.
Not to mention people also almost always forget the caveat part of the statement: The simplest explanation with the most evidence.

Does anyone know where that site is, the one with the list of errors one can make in an arguement, where you tick them and fill in the name of the person you're arguing with. It had a Dilbert comic strip at the top. Well the point is, one of the things it had was over application of Occam's Razor. As imple explanation is more likely to be the right one, but that's no reason to ignore the complicated explanations until you have a good reason to.

For the record, while it's quite possible that everything I perceive is faked, I see that as ultimately irrelevant. If I cannot ever perceive the "true reality" or see beyond this "existence" anyway, why should I worry about it?

A fine question. Why, indeed? Even if I were able to perceive some "true reality", what good is perception if the percipient can neither do anything about it nor convince others that he's actually seen it? Make yourself a nice sandwich with fresh garden tomatoes and Hellman's mayo and quaff a lovely beverage. Life is only what we make it.

David Deutsch pretty much demolished Solipsism.
I can't even begin to sum up his theories, but I recall that one key was that in order for the mind to be Faked, accurately and convincingly, you need a Faker of huge capability to generate the very detailed and self consistent but fake information. This "information generator" cannot be anything less complex than the universe itself.

By analogy, if this were a videogame, the videogame would have to include every possible feedback for every possible test of reality I could conceive. The designer would not know which rock I intended to pick up or where I intended to throw it. Or break it, or or smell it, or otherwise examine or interact with it. The information database would actually have to be larger than a real universe it is trying to model.

If there is more information required for the model than the real thing, Occam says the real thing is the real thing.

The current issue of Discover also slams Solispsism.

So what? Solipsism (defined as the theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified) does not imply "brain in a jar". It implies what it says -- we can only verify ourselves. I'm not sure I totally agree with it, but I know it's irrelevant to either "slam" or "demolish". It's just a theory.

Oh, but it's so much fun to erode the foundations of his world view.


Don't worry, you aren't.

It wasn't me - I wasn't anywhere near it when it happened.

Don't worry, you aren't.

That's right: what isn't there cannot be eroded. :rolleyes:

Oh, but it's so much fun to erode the foundations of his world view.

Well, sure, but he'll never learn this way.

Does anyone know where that site is, the one with the list of errors one can make in an arguement, where you tick them and fill in the name of the person you're arguing with. It had a Dilbert comic strip at the top. Well the point is, one of the things it had was over application of Occam's Razor. As imple explanation is more likely to be the right one, but that's no reason to ignore the complicated explanations until you have a good reason to.

I'm not aware of such a site, but you're definitely right. It's meant as a reasoning tool, not a proof in and of itself.

That's right: what isn't there cannot be eroded. :rolleyes:

You make a funny...NOT!

;)

It wasn’t me–I wasn’t anywhere near it when it happened.
*suspects*

Of all the poll options, the first is closest to my understanding.

However, I feel the question is not only unanswerable — mainly due to our understanding of, and vantage point in, space-time — but more importantly, the question seems moot. Little of one’s physical or philosophical life is determined by a theoretical understanding of the ‘beginning’ of the universe.

That’s not to say the question is uninteresting, or that it shouldn’t be discussed, but it falls into the same realm as questions like, “does God exist?”, or, “am I just a brain in a vat?”.

*suspects*

Of all the poll options, the first is closest to my understanding.

However, I feel the question is not only unanswerable — mainly due to our understanding of, and vantage point in, space-time — but more importantly, the question seems moot. Little of one’s physical or philosophical life is determined by a theoretical understanding of the ‘beginning’ of the universe.

That’s not to say the question is uninteresting, or that it shouldn’t be discussed, but it falls into the same realm as questions like, “does God exist?”, or, “am I just a brain in a vat?”.
On that note I disagree entirely because we CAN know and understand the origins of the universe, and it is most certainly relevant, at the very least in terms of completing our knowledge, and I'm sure any astrophysics major could tell you why it's more important than that. (I don't know myself but I'm sure it is important somehow.)

I'm a little surprised, though, Chumbly...I wouldn't have thought you'd think this.

On that note I disagree entirely because we CAN know and understand the origins of the universe,
Perhaps I’m being a little too harsh, but it seems to me that we may well know what happened 0.000001 seconds (or something like that) after the ‘start’ of the universe — indeed I believe we can gather accurate information about this time period — but we can’t really know what kicked the whole thing off. We can postulate (God, big bang, a singularity, etc.), but I find it hard to see how we could accurately say how the universe began while we are still inside the universe itself.

If the universe ‘began’ at all...

and it is most certainly relevant, at the very least in terms of completing our knowledge, and I’m sure any astrophysics major could tell you why it’s more important than that. (I don’t know myself but I’m sure it is important somehow.)
Again, my point above applies. I certainly agree that the events just after the start of the universe have massive importance and repercussions for physics, philosophy and whatever, but is the ‘start’ of the universe, outside of space-time relevant to an understanding of the world grounded in space-time? I’m not so sure.

I’m a little surprised, though, Chumbly...I wouldn’t have thought you’d think this.
May I enquire as to why?

Perhaps I’m being a little too harsh, but it seems to me that we may well know what happened 0.000001 seconds (or something like that) after the ‘start’ of the universe — indeed I believe we can gather accurate information about this time period — but we can’t really know what kicked the whole thing off. We can postulate (God, big bang, a singularity, etc.), but I find it hard to see how we could accurately say how the universe began while we are still inside the universe itself.

If the universe ‘began’ at all...
And yet, we can. I don't know how, because I'm not a scientist, but we can.


Again, my point above applies. I certainly agree that the events just after the start of the universe have massive importance and repercussions for physics, philosophy and whatever, but is the ‘start’ of the universe, outside of space-time relevant to an understanding of the world grounded in space-time? I’m not so sure.
Okay, I see what you mean. In the sense of grounding in our own space-time framework it's not relevant per se, but it's still useful information. Again, I can't say how it could be useful, but I'm sure it is.

May I enquire as to why?
It just didn't seem like something you'd say, that's all. I meant no offense.

Something about plasma in the 11th dimension converging and causing the big bang. Where did that originate from? I don't know, I have better things to do.

And yet, we can. I don’t know how, because I’m not a scientist, but we can.
Well, it’s not been shown to me how we can, but I’m certainly not a scientist either.

Just an annoying philosophy student. :p

It just didn’t seem like something you’d say, that’s all. I meant no offense.
None taken in any way!

I’m very pleasantly surprised that someone could gauge my opinion on something.

I really think I remember that general relativity allows for an infinite curvature of the spacetime - hence 0 volume in black holes.
Anyway, you're right: 0 volume is nowhere NECESSARY for black holes to exist.

(Schwarzschild... you only inverted the zs).

Grazie. Silly German names.

Grazie. Silly German names.
Austrian, I believe.

Austrian, I believe.

Same dif, :p

I believe that we are the direct result of a momentous intestinal disruption on the part of Deity

Same dif, :p
Oh dear, oh dear.

As Paul Chuckle used to say.

Oh, but it's so much fun to erode the foundations of his world view.


Does anyone know where that site is, the one with the list of errors one can make in an arguement, where you tick them and fill in the name of the person you're arguing with. It had a Dilbert comic strip at the top. Well the point is, one of the things it had was over application of Occam's Razor. As imple explanation is more likely to be the right one, but that's no reason to ignore the complicated explanations until you have a good reason to.

I have the link (http://www.megat.co.uk/wrong/) saved in my favorites, but it seems to be down at the moment. I hope it's only temporary(I've not used it in a few months, so I'm not sure); I was a pretty big fan of the site and enjoyed using it in internet debates.

Hmm, the universe didn't come from nothing. Time is a part of it, thus it has existed for all time, but time does not extend backward infinitely. So does that make the first choice right?

Maybe its not here. Maybe we aren't here. Maybe we are just rays of light. probably not, but maybe.

Nobody knows the origins of the universe. However...

We do have a basic framework, based itself on extrapolations, experiments, observations, and theories that seem to describe the nature of basic phenomena.

Based on this, the general consensus is that the big bang somehow happened and all that we see sprang into existence. We do not know how, why, or even a definite when, or what.

We do know that all attempts to discern what is beyond the boundaries of the universe (time or space) using science is impossible, due to the lack of energy, matter, or information from before, after, or out of our plane of existence. Hell, we don't even know some things in our plane of existence.

The question is irrelevant. While humans (and other animals) perceive time linearly, it isn't actually linear. As such, the beginning of the universe has 'always' existed, As has the end.

The question is irrelevant. While humans (and other animals) perceive time linearly, it isn't actually linear. As such, the beginning of the universe has 'always' existed, As has the end.

Not really. It's true that time (or rather, spacetime) is non-linear in the presence of gravity, but time is still one-directional. It goes, at whatever pace, from start to finish.

As such, the beginning of the universe existed once, and the end will exist at some point in the far future.

Not really. It's true that time (or rather, spacetime) is non-linear in the presence of gravity, but time is still one-directional. It goes, at whatever pace, from start to finish.
.

What if time actually can slow it's rate and eventually reverse direction? Would the begining be the end?

What if time actually can slow it's rate and eventually reverse direction? Would the begining be the end?

Well, yes and no. It's theoretically possible to construct a wormhole whose mouth is at two different points in spacetime, such that one can go "backward" in time. However, this is more akin to poking a shortcut between two points in time, rather than curving time back to the opposite direction.

Also, time never really "slows," except when looked at relative to other regions. For instance, spacetime becomes heavily curved in the vicinity of a large gravitational field, like, say, a black hole. Thus, someone could, again purely theoretically, sit outside the event horizon of a black hole, and assuming they were in something that could withstand the intense gravitational tidal forces constantly threatening to rip their ship apart, they would experience a time dilation effect such that time would essentially slow for them.
The formulation for this is as follows:

t0 = tf(sqrt(1-(2GM)/(r(c^2)))), where t0 is the local time of an object in the gravitational field, tf is the time relative to an observer outside the field, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the object generating the gravitational field, r is the distance of the external observer from the object within the gravitational field, and c is the speed of light.


You can also experience time dilation (time slowing down for you, effectively) by moving at near-luminal velocities relative to much slower objects.
It wraps up in a rather simple formulation for proper time, that looks something like (quoting from memory):

t = t0/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)), where t0 is the local time of an object, v is the velocity of the object relative to the observer, c is the speed of light (a constant in all frames of reference), and t is the time relative to the observer.

The caveat here is that in both cases it is impossible to get a negative time lapse by either method, since the resultant of the square root is always positive. It also shows the time for an object never really 'slows', but rather changes at a different pace relative to another object, based on other factors (gravitational field or inertial velocity).

Wrong. Matter/antimatter pairs come into existence out of nothing all the time.

Really? Can you prove or demonstrate this scientifically, like Ohshucksiforgotourname asked you to?

Not when I last checked.

In other words, something wills itself into existence without a pre-existent entity causing it directly or indirectly? Am I understanding you correctly here? Effect without cause? Sorry, doesn't make sense to me.

In other words, something wills itself into existence without a pre-existent entity causing it directly or indirectly? Am I understanding you correctly here? Effect without cause? Sorry, doesn't make sense to me.

Neither does his name, for that matter. lol :p

Speaking of which, how's year 1 of grad school going? Have you picked out a concentration?
Looks like I get to write a program that will calculate molecular spectra. I have no idea how I'm going to do this, but apparently nobody has a clue how they'll get their projects completed during their first semester.

It is not here, it is an illusion. If we think of the universe as a "static", and of our senses as recievers, we find that what we can see is just a very very small part of the world. Our brain constantly analyzes the information our senses recieve, and try to find patterns, thus automatically sorting away information before processing it in our "mind" at a conscious level. Seen from this perspective, there is no "physical" world. There is no physical particles, or even constants of nature. It is all our way of trying to understand the world. Sure, gravity exists, but it isnt something that is "hard-coded" into the very core of the universe. There are countless of particles in the universe that constantly interact with each other, and apparently it is more likely for these interactions to stabilize as predictable systems once they randomly reach such a state in their interaction. Since all particles, according to quantum physics, are in a way entangled to each other, this stable systemised state would then apply to the whole universe, and not just to a spatially defineable region of space.

So, if we define "real" as what we theorethically, in one way or another can interact with through conscious choice, there is no real reality but only our interpretations of this gigantic "field" of static. And yes, this field of "static" is in itself a very very illogical place that at least according to quantum physics is ruled by true randomness.

So, scientifically enough explanation for my choice?

Yeah. Looks and sounds scientific to me. Not that I agree with your persuasion, but you DID give a scientific explanation for your theory.

Looks like I get to write a program that will calculate molecular spectra. I have no idea how I'm going to do this, but apparently nobody has a clue how they'll get their projects completed during their first semester.

Heh, that sounds like my first day on the job as an undergraduate research grunt.

"Hey, I need you to write a program to unwarp the data sets and map them into east and north normalized coordinates in IDL."

"Umm...what's IDL."

"Ok, have fun with it" *walks away*


I hear rumors it gets slightly better over time. I'm really hoping that's the case :D

Really? Can you prove or demonstrate this scientifically, like Ohshucksiforgotourname asked you to?



In other words, something wills itself into existence without a pre-existent entity causing it directly or indirectly? Am I understanding you correctly here? Effect without cause? Sorry, doesn't make sense to me.

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae605.cfm This article discusses rather concisely the concept of violation of conservation of energy over short time spans from a physics perspective. Granted it doesn't specifically discuss pair-production, but it does briefly mention that the violation of conservation is a result of energy being pulled from nowhere.

And honestly, where did the leap from "it appears out of nowhere" to "it wills itself into existence" come from?

The last time I checked, pions weren't sentient.

man! i love talking about this .. I can talk like a nut.. without actually being a nut.

That's the allure of NSG. *nods*

Some super being(probably LG) fapped, and this is the result.

Alas, it was a near-infinite amount of LG's doing a near-infinite amount of fapping, thus making this particular result quite predictable and probable indeed.

The last time I checked, pions weren't sentient.

Soooooooooooo threadworthy.

I have better things to do.

We all know you don't. Probability doesn't support your conclusion. :p

Same dif, :p

Nuh-uh ... just ask the family Von Trapp.

*Edelweiss ... Edelweiss ...*

Alas, it was a near-infinite amount of LG's doing a near-infinite amount of fapping, thus making this particular result quite predictable and probable indeed.

A near infinite amount of LG playing the soggy biscuit game.

Alas, it was a near-infinite amount of LG's doing a near-infinite amount of fapping, thus making this particular result quite predictable and probable indeed.

It was a big bang. :)

A near infinite amount of LG playing the soggy biscuit game.

:eek:

:eek:

That is an accurate representation of the face of the losing LG. Some day soon he will eat the universe.

That is an accurate representation of the face of the losing LG. Some day soon he will eat the universe.

:(

:(

Don't worry, then round two begins :)

Don't worry, then round two begins :)

The hilarity of winning is usually worth the risk of losing.

It's important to keep that in mind when one loses. :p

There are actually four different possibilities than the ones in the poll, which cover all options.

1. The universe is eternal (has always existed)
2. The universe came into existance spontaneously
3. Some creative force is eternal
4. Some creative force came into existance spontaneously

Within each option we might discuss specifics, such as a big bang/crunch cycle or whether there is any connection between what we experience and existential reality, but fundamentally we cannot make any statements about the origins of the universe other than that one of the four cases above must be true.

P.S. Hi LG, long time no see.

Soooooooooooo threadworthy.

Yay! :)

Nuh-uh ... just ask the family Von Trapp.

*Edelweiss ... Edelweiss ...*

Hehe, love that movie.

Deus...is the whole "energy coming from nowhere" another part of the Many Worlds theory? That is, is it explained as being energy from other universes?

Deus...is the whole "energy coming from nowhere" another part of the Many Worlds theory? That is, is it explained as being energy from other universes?

No, it's actually an indirectly observable consequence of the uncertainty principle.
People are generally familiar with the concept of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle with respect to position and momentum (dxdp~h/2) where h is actually h-bar, the Dirac constant, or the Planck constant over 2*pi.

There is also a formulation for uncertainty between energy and time, a consequence of quantum mechanics, dEdt~h/2.

What this means is, that for small spans of time, conservation of energy can be violated, but that because these spans of time have to necessarily be so small as to be not directly observable, this violation is also not directly observable, and can only be observed indirectly through its effect on other things.

The article I linked a page back goes into more detail on the subject, and does a fairly good job of it, as well.

No, it's actually an indirectly observable consequence of the uncertainty principle.
People are generally familiar with the concept of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle with respect to position and momentum (dxdp~h/2) where h is actually h-bar, the Dirac constant, or the Planck constant over 2*pi.

There is also a formulation for uncertainty between energy and time, a consequence of quantum mechanics, dEdt~h/2.

What this means is, that for small spans of time, conservation of energy can be violated, but that because these spans of time have to necessarily be so small as to be not directly observable, this violation is also not directly observable, and can only be observed indirectly through its effect on other things.

The article I linked a page back goes into more detail on the subject, and does a fairly good job of it, as well.
Oooooh. That makes quite a lot of sense, actually. I'm not sure I fully understand, but I'm not exactly a physics student either.

But basically, while such violations happen, they're not really affecting anything?

>>And? Why is it impossible for the universe as we know it to be simulated?

Because the difference, dear philosophers, becomes irrelevant. For the simulation to contain all the necessary information, it can't be any smaller than the universe it is simulation. An accurate simulation of any set of rules must restate those rules. Ergo, a perfect universe simulation would not be simpler than the universe, and it would functionally identical to every test, so that defining it as something OTHER than the universe is nonsensical.

If you ate something that was a perfect simulation of a cookie, mimicing smell, taste, texture, and even its metabolic effects within your body to any arbitrary level of detail, it would be useless to describe it as "not a cookie", since it passes every conceivable test of cookie-ness. You have eaten a cookie until it can be proved otherwise.

In order to seperately define an object, you need at least one testable characteristic. An undetectable simulation has none. Until some test of realness can be created which the universe flunks, it is nonsensical to describe it as non-real.

Note that this was explored in "The Matrix"; there were indeed certain tests of realness that the universe flunked.

>>Quote:
>>By analogy, if this were a videogame, the videogame would have to >>include every possible feedback for every possible test of reality I could >>conceive. The designer would not know which rock I intended to pick up or >>where I intended to throw it. Or break it, or or smell it, or otherwise >>examine or interact with it. The information database would actually have >>to be larger than a real universe it is trying to model.

>Since your brain is wired to this incomprehensibly powerful computer then it >does know which rock you intend to pick up and where you intend to throw >it, within only a fraction of a second of you knowing it yourself.

But it does not know what the results will be, does it? It needs to develop that from its list of facts and rules and interactions- which creates a computer as large and complex as the universe itself, since it has to contain within it the same information and rules.

And the only computer powerful enough to do that would be the universe itself, or an object functionally, describably, predictably, and therefore logically identical.


Read anything by David Deutsch. He has a doctorate in this sort of thing and can explain it better than I.

Oooooh. That makes quite a lot of sense, actually. I'm not sure I fully understand, but I'm not exactly a physics student either.

But basically, while such violations happen, they're not really affecting anything?

The article will probably give you more accurate info than I could really summarize, but essentially they have indirect effects that don't add up to noticeable violate conservation.

The article will probably give you more accurate info than I could really summarize, but essentially they have indirect effects that don't add up to noticeable violate conservation.

Ah, okay. Thanks.

This is beginning to make me contemplate taking a physics class...but I don't think I could handle the math. I can't even handle things like logs and the quadratic equation, let alone stuff like this.

Ah, okay. Thanks.

This is beginning to make me contemplate taking a physics class...but I don't think I could handle the math. I can't even handle things like logs and the quadratic equation, let alone stuff like this.

What's your major?

Depends on the physics class, really. There are non-math-intensive physics classes, depending on your school, and there are rigorous, absolutely horrifyingly painfully math-intensive classes, like the one I'm taking now (Quantum Mechanics).

What's your major?

Depends on the physics class, really. There are non-math-intensive physics classes, depending on your school, and there are rigorous, absolutely horrifyingly painfully math-intensive classes, like the one I'm taking now (Quantum Mechanics).

Heh...major...

I'm not in college yet. I can't be in it because I can't afford it...that's why I'm joining the Navy.

What I WILL major in though...I have no idea. But I'll look into physics courses when I do get into college...this stuff is fascinating.

It always is.

Had no idea you were joining the Navy. Sounds like "fun" :)

What? Seriously? It's in my signature here and I've talked about many times over at GM. You need to learn to read more. :p

I'm not entirely looking forward to it...while I appreciate the skills it can teach me and the respect--however deserved or undeserved--it will garner me when I seek employment, but on the other hand...I don't like violence, especially not violence that kills you.

Heh...major...

I'm not in college yet. I can't be in it because I can't afford it...that's why I'm joining the Navy.

What I WILL major in though...I have no idea. But I'll look into physics courses when I do get into college...this stuff is fascinating.

It always is.

Had no idea you were joining the Navy. Sounds like "fun" :)

Heh...major...

I'm not in college yet. I can't be in it because I can't afford it...that's why I'm joining the Navy.

What I WILL major in though...I have no idea. But I'll look into physics courses when I do get into college...this stuff is fascinating.

I'd stay away from theoretical physics if I were you. That stuff is dangerous.

*grabs Hazmat suit and crowbar*

I don't like violence, especially not violence that kills you.
Don't get me wrong, but for many people this would rule out going into the armed forces.

What? Seriously? It's in my signature here and I've talked about many times over at GM. You need to learn to read more. :p

I'm not entirely looking forward to it...while I appreciate the skills it can teach me and the respect--however deserved or undeserved--it will garner me when I seek employment, but on the other hand...I don't like violence, especially not violence that kills you.

You don't need to be on the front lines. One of my friends here in the office was in the Marine Corps working as a radio operator. Never got anywhere near a battlefield.

By analogy, if this were a videogame, the videogame would have to include every possible feedback for every possible test of reality I could conceive. The designer would not know which rock I intended to pick up or where I intended to throw it. Or break it, or or smell it, or otherwise examine or interact with it. The information database would actually have to be larger than a real universe it is trying to model.
Turn that the other way round, though.

In a video-game (at least one that isn't sloppily programmed) your video-game characters/objects do have every possible feedback. Whether it's "movable character sprite lands on flame environment sprite, they die", collision detection between vehicles/landscape in a race game or when a player 'moves' into the 'room' with an active auto-attacking fighting NPC combat is initiated.

All of this is describable in terms that we understand, and can be generalised. In a very simplest video-game I was taught to write around 25 years ago, a 'rocket' flying through a randomly-generated cave 'crashes' if any part of it is overwritten on the 'cave-wall colour' rather than the safe black 'space'. Doesn't matter what the cave looks like (a 'universe cave' without any 'empty space' is not a viable environment of course) or what the ship looks like,

Whether or not you endow the sprites/whatever of the knowledge of the walls themselves (to auto-play) or require full outside control, they won't necessarily have full knowledge of the principle ("the universe is made up of dots with 'colour', and if I 'move' over this certain 'colour' then some mysterious quantity called 'lives' is reduced and I find myself back at the beginning of the last cave I was flying through") though they could 'know', instinctively, to not fly into walls if they can help it and (if you can translate their 'thought processes', or programming) put it down to revulsion for certain environmental factors, attraction to 'open spaces' and some mysterious soul-like aspect.

Now, there are good arguments that a bounded scenario that wholly contains understanding of another bounded scenario must be no less complex than the one it contains, which means the universe 'outside our own videogame' must be more complex. And who is to say that we aren't as of the level of space-invaders or pac-man[1] to the Real World? That the shape of the universe that we see is as 'unreal' to what exists in the Real World as the wrap-around universe of Asteroids to us, etc, gravity and inertia and fluid-dynamics merely a 'game convention' (that we, ironically, have striven to replicate in our most 'realistic' artificial realities).

Or, to put it another way, imagine a Conway's Game Of Life-type universe in which a particularly complex pattern of cellular automata 'lives' as an entity (in reality, consisting of the 'fabric of the universe' oscillating in and out of certain states), traversing the universe to 'feed' on clumps of simpler automata and subsuming them within itself. Or something more strange, given that the 'subsuming' of other automata isn't actually necessary for the continued thriving of am entity, indeed, there are chances that certain 'viral' automata can integrate themselves into the outside layers of a larger one and subvert it into a massively-complex version of a 'glider-thrower'. But for the sake of things, let's try to ascribe 'real world' aspects of life to it, to see the obvious differences.

A CGOL 'creature' senses the universe in a way limited by the fabric itself, the rules, and such. It would have no direct ability to 'understand' our 3D(-ish) universe where action can occur at a distance, rather than by touch (or extreme proximity and 'feeler' elements to its body). Some might ask how we could deign to extend our own understanding of the universe into what exists 'beyond'. Even if we can imagine that 'we' (our 'solid' selves and the movement of information around our spheres of influence) are merely 'dynamically interacting standing waves of interference' (and please forgive the contradiction of terms), as a cellular-automata entity could theorise that its existence arises from a very simple rule of 'birth and death of unit states', does that give us an insight on the 'meta-universe' within which ours is defined? Would the cellular-automata understand gravity, radiation, fluid-dynamics, Bohr-model of the atom...?

Still, we can always base our ideas on what we think. We might be wrong, but if it's as good as we can do and it explains things, it works for me. Hence I look for elegance in my own ideas about 'the solution', and listen out for new information that might require me to make changes to it.


And, much as I don't think it's possible for one to design an actual 'conscious' cellular-automata and its environment from scratch, I don't think anyone 'designed' us, but given the basic concept of the world (along the lines of "cells light up if..." "cells stay lit if..." "cells unlight if..." but in the form that governs our own existence) there's every chance that if it's been randomly seeded with appropriate 'stuff', something could have arisen spontaneously.

That's the kind of thing I like thinking about... Now, if you excuse me, I'll just go with these nice people with the white coats... ;)

[1] PS: See http://pac-txt.com/

Note that this was explored in "The Matrix"; there were indeed certain tests of realness that the universe flunked.
Even the one with Zion in... ;)

two theories:
1) this is a delusion and at sleep is the real world!! coming to a movie theater near u.
2) we are part of a bigger world, maybe on someone's fingertip, or maybe someone's video game being moved about.
and the alternative alternate theory... no drumroll please
3) is that it is an on-going cycle so there is no beginning and no end, time and space are not defined. all those molecules that make up matter are held together but if dissected or torn apart then things cease to exist or form something else. the world is made up of matter, some you can see and others you can't. but let's face it most of the time we don't know what we are seeing, in front of us or in space.:p

Clearly, the universe was a really big hairball coughed up by an even bigger cat!

But seriously, matter can be changed to energy, but not simply destroyed. It can be "negated" with antimatter, but that creates a LOT of energy. Matter cannot be created out of nothing, but it can be created from energy. Similarly, matter and antimatter can be created simultaneously, but that requires energy. Therefore, the universe had to always have existed, even though the ratio of amtter to energy may have changed.

Plus, if there was a point where there was no universe, there was nothing to trigger the universe's creation!

This could lead to the touchy subject of relegion and not just science. As in one persons view it was matter and anti matter colliding and matter was more plentiful then anti matter and that is why we have matter. But can we prove it no. Another person may thing an almighty being created it. But can we prove it either way? Some relegions say yes it is written down but can we prove either way scientifcally? I think not.

This could lead to the touchy subject of relegion and not just science. As in one persons view it was matter and anti matter colliding and matter was more plentiful then anti matter and that is why we have matter. But can we prove it no. Another person may thing an almighty being created it. But can we prove it either way? Some relegions say yes it is written down but can we prove either way scientifcally? I think not.

Sure, we can't completely prove either way, and science doesn't have all the answers. But it sure as hell comes a lot closer to answering anything than superstition does.

Similarly, matter and antimatter can be created simultaneously, but that requires energy.

Wasn't this covered in this thread yesterday? It's happening spontaneously, innit?

"Cogito Ergo Est: I think therefore you is...." -Robin Williams playing King of The Moon (The Adventures of Baron Munchausen).

I'm not sure about the origin. I'm not completely accepting of the Big Bang.

Wasn't this covered in this thread yesterday? It's happening spontaneously, innit?

It was covered in the thread. Matter/antimatter generation does not require energy. If anything, it requires the absence of energy.

Plus, if there was a point where there was no universe, there was nothing to trigger the universe's creation!

Yes. That's the point. Since there was no universe, there was no causality. In other words, the universe could have expanded from a singularity (which we know happened, we can observe the effects) for no reason whatsoever.

There's a reasonable chance that there are an infinite number of universes right now too. *nod*

Such a cop-out theory too.
At any given time there is a certain number of any given thing.
There can't be an infinite number of anything at a given time.
Isn't it technically impossible?

Yes. That's the point. Since there was no universe, there was no causality. In other words, the universe could have expanded from a singularity (which we know happened, we can observe the effects) for no reason whatsoever.

Indeed, no universe, no time; no time, no causality (cause and effect); the universe itself "before" (which is in itself an absurdly inappropriate word in the context, but the best that can be applied by the human mind to this) the expansion "effect" and "cause" didn't exist anymore than "time", "width", "length", "mass", "gravity" and any number of principles which we consider the basis and definition of our existence and understanding.

It was covered in the thread. Matter/antimatter generation does not require energy. If anything, it requires the absence of energy.

Not entirely true. Pair-production generally occurs as a result of the interaction of a gamma-ray or similar high-energy photon and matter.

The violation of conservation of energy deals with a situation slightly different.

Such a cop-out theory too.
At any given time there is a certain number of any given thing.
There can't be an infinite number of anything at a given time.
Isn't it technically impossible?

It's not actually infinite. Nothing is ever really infinite. It's just that as you add up all the possible branchings of the many-worlds interpretation as a result of quantum mechanical interactions, the limit approaches infinite, and it approaches it pretty damned fast.

It's not actually infinite. Nothing is ever really infinite. It's just that as you add up all the possible branchings of the many-worlds interpretation as a result of quantum mechanical interactions, the limit approaches infinite, and it approaches it pretty damned fast.

*head asplode*

Not entirely true. Pair-production generally occurs as a result of the interaction of a gamma-ray or similar high-energy photon and matter.

The violation of conservation of energy deals with a situation slightly different.

Learn something new every day.

Whenever I try to think of the size of the universe the only conclusion I come to is "so what's beyond that". I have accepted that I will never understand this and have stopped trying.

Click Stand;13194888']Whenever I try to think of the size of the universe the only conclusion I come to is "so what's beyond that". I have accepted that I will never understand this and have stopped trying.Language and old habits are tricksy, but you're making a non sequitur.

Try rephrasing it as "Whenever I try to think of the size of the reality" and "so what's beyond that" suddenly seems a much less obvious question, right? In fact, the better question is "do I have any reason to assume there's more reality than reality?"

Heh, that sounds like my first day on the job as an undergraduate research grunt.

"Hey, I need you to write a program to unwarp the data sets and map them into east and north normalized coordinates in IDL."

"Umm...what's IDL."

"Ok, have fun with it" *walks away*


I hear rumors it gets slightly better over time. I'm really hoping that's the case :D
Oh! You get to use IDL too?! I'm in the process of slowly learning how to use it. I need to get it to read a file and a bunch of other junk for my TA duties. Yippie.

Oh! You get to use IDL too?! I'm in the process of slowly learning how to use it. I need to get it to read a file and a bunch of other junk for my TA duties. Yippie.

TG me a reminder and tomorrow I'll get you a link to an IDL Reference Guide with about 2000 pages of awesomeness. It lists every single IDL command and details on how to use it. Saved my sanity.

A near infinite amount of LG playing the soggy biscuit game.

So which is it, a game or a rite of passage? Everyone in my Glee Club needs to know. Mime's-a-wasting.

It's not actually infinite. Nothing is ever really infinite. It's just that as you add up all the possible branchings of the many-worlds interpretation as a result of quantum mechanical interactions, the limit approaches infinite, and it approaches it pretty damned fast.

Yay!
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/MAR-Peeves/applause_crowd.gif

*temporarily disables your eye lasers with a well tossed banana cream pie and vanishes in a sudden puff of cotton candy scented smoke*

Being the Official NSG God has it's perks. :)

Do you really think you can harm me with your "banana cream pies" and "cotton candy scented smoke"? I barely feel these things as they bounce off me. You cannot escape General Zod! I shall soon find you and force you to kneel before me! I strongly recommend that you go ahead and kneel before me, rather than give me the opportunity to catch you off your knees, for if I catch you not kneeling, I shall make you wish you had!

Now KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

TG me a reminder and tomorrow I'll get you a link to an IDL Reference Guide with about 2000 pages of awesomeness. It lists every single IDL command and details on how to use it. Saved my sanity.

*Remembered*

You've got a TG.

>>And? Why is it impossible for the universe as we know it to be simulated?
This isn't 2/4/12/420chan, we have tags.

[quote]Because the difference, dear philosophers, becomes irrelevant. For the simulation to contain all the necessary information, it can't be any smaller than the universe it is simulation. An accurate simulation of any set of rules must restate those rules. Ergo, a perfect universe simulation would not be simpler than the universe, and it would functionally identical to every test, so that defining it as something OTHER than the universe is nonsensical.
But the simulation would be a series of electrical impluses conveying information. The simulated universe would have no mass, no volume. No more than Kalimdor has in WoW

If you ate something that was a perfect simulation of a cookie, mimicing smell, taste, texture, and even its metabolic effects within your body to any arbitrary level of detail, it would be useless to describe it as "not a cookie", since it passes every conceivable test of cookie-ness. You have eaten a cookie until it can be proved otherwise.
Abscense of proof is not proof of abscence. Just because you can't prove it's 'not a cookie' doesn't mean it's not 'not a cookie'. That and the mass/volume/etc thing from above.

In order to seperately define an object, you need at least one testable characteristic. An undetectable simulation has none. Until some test of realness can be created which the universe flunks, it is nonsensical to describe it as non-real.
Abscense of proof is not proof of abscence.

But it does not know what the results will be, does it? It needs to develop that from its list of facts and rules and interactions-
Which is how it comes to 'know'.
which creates a computer as large and complex as the universe itself, since it has to contain within it the same information and rules.
Strange, because I can download an e-book that takes up less space than than a physical one.

And the only computer powerful enough to do that would be the universe itself, or an object functionally, describably, predictably, and therefore logically identical.
So why doesn't Google Earth require a with size = the surface area of earth?

Such a cop-out theory too.
At any given time there is a certain number of any given thing.
There can't be an infinite number of anything at a given time.
Isn't it technically impossible?
Depends what the 'thing' is. There are an infinite number of numbers.
So which is it, a game or a rite of passage? Everyone in my Glee Club needs to know. Mime's-a-wasting.

It's a bit of both.