Reply With Quote
Post of the year nominee, kids.
ElNono bringin' the pain.
Admit? I have the knowledge that you can travel in multiple directions, and you can do it infinitely, though you'll never reach the end. That's why an infinite past is impossible, since a present would end an infinite past (thus making it finite).
The ol' sticky key.
Why do you assume "creator" must be capitalized?Why would you assume that if there was no Creator that the next conclusion would have to be matter from non-matter?
But to answer to your question:
A) The universe has existed forever -- a mathematical impossibility
B) The universe created itself -- breaks its own laws and has no evidence; seems illogical
C) The universe was created by an outside source -- possible
Do you have any other plausible answers?
I have multiple degrees, you pompous bag. Now, I can claim them, claim what jobs I work, etc... but it's the internet, so you won't believe me. However, if you'd like to follow me on Twitter, you'll find that I am an author, I work as an off-site consultant for 2K Sports, I'm an educator, and I'm an app developer for iOS and Droid. Needless to say, I make enough money to live very comfortably. However, no matter how much money I make, I would never be such a piece of flaming as to try to down someone based on how much money I guessed they make.
twitter.com/bluelightningtn
So... what are your credentials?
You can check my history... this is the first time I've ever devoted any time to it. But the opportunity to challenge myself intellectually? Yeah, that's fun. Hours? Nah... I'd say I've put around 45 minutes into it.
Do you guys suck each other's pee pees in real life or just in online forums?I think someone jess got sent to da sidelines
So from what I gather, the entire argument you guys came up with was some sort of mocking of people with biblical degrees, not knowing that I have multiple degrees. I then put up by throwing my twitter account out there.
Man... you kiddos just can't win.
BL
Post of the year nominee, kids.
ElNono bringin' the pain.
Can you count the laps on a circle-shaped (infinite) track, yes or no?
If you can, how does that invalidate the definition from dictionary.com you posted above? Why should it?
If you could post your answer with the dictionary.com definition as backdrop, that would be great
I'm no science/math buff, but I think this guy's error in regards to infinite regress is pretty obvious.
-infinity <-----0-----> +infinity
Replace negative infinity with the past, 0 with the present, and positive infinity with the future.
If Blue's argument is correct about not being able to reach the present from an infinite past was true, wouldn't that mean that one cannot reach zero from negative infinity?
Is this clear enough? Somebody correct me.
Hey, I once worked for Tiburon/EA on the Madden franchise, no surprises we're butting heads
lol "consulting"
They're not.
They're all from one other poster.
Wait, I have a twitter account too! Intellectuals love those
And DoK didn't even make it here yet
Yew jess kent dew teengks lyke det!
I ran over Schrodinger's cat today. I am not sure if it died.
Poke a hole in the argument then. What evidence is there that all matter in the universe self-generated against the laws of thermodynamics?
You did not debunk a false premise. You, in fact, forced me to define the term "infinity" correctly for you - something that high school math students should already know.Already debunked this false premise (about to do so again below), which invalidates the "logic" you extrapolate from it.
From a logic standpoint, your argument doesn't hold water as it is, however, I'll indulge on a question from your lazily concocted strawman:
So here's your question, and we'll see if you can answer it:
1) How is the concept of an "infinite past" illogical with a "present" a false premise?
I would say that both take faith. I'm glad you admit you hold a faith-based belief.Why is it ridiculous? Does believing that requires so much more of a leap of faith than, say, an psychotic omnipotent invisible god?
Also, I don't believe in a psychotic, omnipotent, invisible god. So, you might want to find someone who does if you're going to argue against that idea.
We know that you hold a faith-based belief, whereas I am more agnostic as to the qualities of the creator.The correct answer, again, is neither you or I know (yet)
Yawn.At some point earlier today you thought you had a high IQ. Now THAT's ridiculous.
Another yawn. You postulated that if a creator did exist that he would be transferring energies from somewhere else in order to create our universe, and thus break the first law of thermodynamics. If that were true, then the somewhere else would mean another place exists outside our universe, and that cons utes a muliverse. I was just showing you why that was wrong - I suppose I do subscribe to the idea of a multiverse, just as Hawking and others do, but I don't see it as proven.So you subscribing to certain theory makes it true?
You don't even know if multiverses exist! But you already assumed they do.
What's funny is that you don't realize you are the one who introduced the multiverse concept into the debate, but weren't knowledgable enough to recognize it. Then when I labeled it, you assumed I was supporting it. *eyeroll*"that one" isn't "easily wrong", because your multiverse theory isn't testable, and until it isn't testable, it isn't wrong at all.
Basically, you don't know. You can say it, it's ok.
Really? So it doesn't matter if the things that would be created in the universe are also the things that created it? That's like saying that it's okay to believe the puppies created the mother dog as well. And the comment about energy transfers is jibberish... it isn't science, it's just pretend knowledge. It's kind of like debating someone with a mental handicap. You're not where you need to be knowledge-wise for this debate to be interesting.Whether they would have been in our universe or not doesn't really matter. You should know that energy transfers can happen regardless of the medium. Come on now, this isn't rocket science (or maybe it is)
Okay. So when did the universe begin? *Pst, I've already given the answer if you need to look it up. I posted it several pages ago*There's no "infinite past" problem.
I know you're trying to sound deep, but keywords aren't helping. Regardless of what you've posted, we do know that energy and matter are distinctly different, and the two do not merge or transfer. We also know that a black hole reaches a singularity past the event horizon and time simply ceases to move there. So we can easily say what happens when something enters it - it freezes.What do we know about matter and energy? We're basically grasping at the very basics right now. We're still hunting the famed Higgs bosom, we know next to nothing about anti-matter, we still don't fully understand quantum dynamics. And that's at the local level. What is a black hole? What's in it? What happens when you cross one?
So, the bottomline is that you made a 5th grade science error and then went with the "yeah, but we don't know stuff so I might actually be right" excuse. Cute.
I'm happy to discuss the things we don't know. We do know, however, that the universe came from an outside source.The only thing we have are theories and conjectures. It's OK to say we don't know (yet).
Ignorance is presuming you know the answers to all these things, without being able to test any of it...
Thank you for teaching me the thing I've been trying to have you understand.It's not that difficult if you actually think about it. "past" implies a point of reference ("before now"). If you can't establish "now", you can't establish "past" or "future". Now the difference between past and future as far as infinite is concerned is that the future is always infinite if the timeline is infinite, and the future is always finite if the timeline is finite. For the past, it depends if the timeline has a start.
False. An infinite past can only be infinite in one direction, and it causes the present and future to no longer exist if it is true.And that's because "infinite" isn't what you said it is. Infinite means that it might or might not have a start, but it has no end.
Actually, that's even incorrect, but you get points for understanding infinity.To give you a 3rd grade example you can understand, when you put two mirrors facing eachother, the reflection is infinite even though it has a start.
While your example would work if lightwaves bounced indefinitely, they actually cease between 8 and 13 times. Just a nice little factoid.
So if an infinite past exists, then the infinite past exists infinitely in one direction. And that would make reaching the present impossible. Trust me, I've seen people try to do what you're doing now, but eventually they all figure it out.
This is also false. Time moves at different speeds throughout the universe, and even moves at different speeds on earth depending on your own speed. Thus the present, past, and future are all blended together in places around the universe like a river with different currents.To recap, there's no "past" without a "now" point of reference. A finite or infinite past without establishing a "now" makes no sense, and factually doesn't exist.
Now, being that "now" can be any point on an infinite timeline, and that past and future are byproducts of now, there's no mathematical impossibility that the past wouldn't be infinite.
In order to arrive at the "present," you have to transverse all points in the "past", and if it is infinite, you'd never arrive at the "present." Additionally, we know the whole point is moot since the big bang occurred, it ocurred at a specific point in time, and prior to it time was frozen (thus the bang is the start of time).
Yes, we do know that. We measure the speed of the universe expansion, plus we use the speed of light to measure distant objects and determine age of the universe from the point of expansion.We estimate/theorize that. We don't know that.
"Construction" and "construct" are both English words - it didn't auto-correct it for you.But I didn't say you can measure infinity. I said you can measure finite time over an infinite timeline. That the timeline might or might not be infinite it's irrelevant. There's nothing spooky about infinity. As I said, it's a normal mathematical construct (yes, I meant construct, damn auto-correct)
If the past were infinite (the only way the universe could exist forever), then you would not be able to quantify the past. If you accept that point, I see no point in furthering that issue.
Have the auto-correct off. It seems to like changing your correctly spelled English words to other words.Let me know of this is getting too complicated for you, and I'll water it down a bit.
My point stands - if you're going to insult someone's intelligence, for the love of god spell the insult correctly.English not being my primary language and the fact I already said I'm typing this on a cell, doesn't make me any less of an "intellectual" (a claim I didn't make, btw), despite what you might think.
1) You're not doing this on a cell as it would have corrected "disappointed" - so that's a lieOn the other hand, I know English well enough to know you understood me just fine. The grammar Nazi act normally follows the butthurtness of getting your ass handed to you like right now, actually. As most science hacks with a big ego, now that your bluff has been called, you resort to nitpicking thinking you can save any e-cred you might have left. Disapointing, but not unexpected.
2) You're almost definitely a native English speaker as you used the term "butthurtness" and the chances of a non-native using that term is next to nil.
3) I mocked you for insulting my intelligence with mispelled words. Grow a pair and get over it.
The track isn't infinite, idiot. It can be measured in area.If I'm telling you how long it took me to arrive to a destination, the fact that I stopped running (and arrived to my destination) is implied. Which is why the walk wasn't an infinite event and your analogy just sucks.
My analogy with the circle-shaped infinite track is much better.
Huff and puff all you'd like.Just stop and stick to biblical studies. This place is already full of science hacks that don't really know what they're talking about.
On the other hand, of you want to learn, let me know if anything of the above isn't clear enough for you, and I'll be glad to keep schooling you and your can of whoop ass...
BL
It is much simpler than that. It means you can never cross the threshold of your door, because you can only move half the distance before you reach the next half and so on, therefore according to the infinite regress of the camel's nose and my beard, you are stuck in time with your temples, your massage parlors.
Begin counting from an infinitely negative number and when you reach zero, let me know.If Blue's argument is correct about not being able to reach the present from an infinite past was true, wouldn't that mean that one cannot reach zero from negative infinity?
Feel free to provide it.
During the quantum singularity, the laws of physics did not exist (or we cannot speculate that they did due to the "lawlessness" -Hawking)
One picosecond after the BB, the temps were so high that it was probably still lawless in terms of gravity and energy. was crazy, dog. We're talking some serious Kelvins, quadrillions and such.
Once the spread happened for a few millions years, maybe quarks became neutrons and protons and such, and maybe some matter formed. 3 weeks later the first Wal-Mart went up.
It doesn't have to be zero; it can be any number. So, tell me how one can reach zero then. According to your infinite regress problem, reaching a plotted point would be impossible, right?
Thank you. It felt good to read something on a fairly high level.
As for the lawlessness, it's unlikely it was lawless, but it was most likely under different laws since it was under tremendously different constraints.
It's called a "ray".
Yeah, you can make it negative google. If you start counting from an infinitely negative number and try to get to negative google, you'll never get there either. It has nothing to do with infinite subdivision of points (infinite regress) and everything to do infinite whole numbers (infinite span).
BL
P.s. You had it right with the term "ray," but I felt they would confuse that with a laser.
It's not unlikely. It's unknown. For it to be unlikely, we would have to know some things about it and those things would have to go against the likelihood of it being lawless. We don't know anything about it. We can do the math on the temps, but we cannot, even using magnetic field support, heat plasma to those temps so we cannot observe that. We can only speculate.
It's nonsensical to say the unknown operated under different laws. They were either bound by the laws of physics or they were not.
Laws are not separate en ies that we have to discover. They are deduced by us after knowing the facts. They are theories of operation. There were no "different" theories of operation during that non-time.
Why can't the present be a constantly changing point that separates the past from the future?
I don't. I simply forgot who the audience was.
D) Matter has existed foreverBut to answer to your question:
A) The universe has existed forever -- a mathematical impossibility
B) The universe created itself -- breaks its own laws and has no evidence; seems illogical
C) The universe was created by an outside source -- possible
Do you have any other plausible answers?
For there to be a change, there has to be two points. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You are acting here as the remote viewer and seeing all three, past, present and future, and calling the present a "changing point".
We are not remote viewers. We are in the now, always, and we remember the past (and can record it) and we can note change.
But you are right about the present, we are a rolling point of now and the past and present are non-existent for all intents and purposes.
Do you mean "since the beginning of time"? Even that would be false. There was only energy, unless you are calling quarks and neutrinos "matter". Matter in the elemental form took millions of years to develop.
The reason we can know it followed certain brief laws is that it followed a pattern or movement (expansion). Patterns mean there are physical laws guiding actions... if it had been completely random you wouldn't see a universe expanding evenly in all directions as we see now.It's not unlikely. It's unknown. For it to be unlikely, we would have to know some things about it and those things would have to go against the likelihood of it being lawless. We don't know anything about it. We can do the math on the temps, but we cannot, even using magnetic field support, heat plasma to those temps so we cannot observe that. We can only speculate.
I'm almost tempted to agree with you just to keep you around since you've raised the level of debate. lolIt's nonsensical to say the unknown operated under different laws. They were either bound by the laws of physics or they were not.
However, as I said, it followed a structured pattern and that means laws. If you take away laws (including the ones we don't understand), then you would either see completely random action (didn't happen) or a cosmic error (didn't happen). Of course a cosmic error could only occur if the universe is being processed in some way.
You understand that there are laws we will invent in the future, and laws that we would hypothesize if we had the ability to test them. Whether we are aware of the governances or not, we know their were natural processes that occurred in a logical manner.Laws are not separate en ies that we have to discover. They are deduced by us after knowing the facts. They are theories of operation. There were no "different" theories of operation during that non-time.
=)
BL
Wasn't sure where to post this (and didn't want to start a new thread).
But, anyway, OKC can play some D!
The Mavs were about to perform last rites on the Thunder (trying to stay on topic), but OKC shut them down the last five times down the court (and scored the last eight points, themselves) to secure the come-from-behind last minute win.
Hate to say it, but OKC may just be arriving folks.
You are still misinterpreting the meaning of "law" in physics.
I probably haven't. El Nono is a sharp cookie.I'm almost tempted to agree with you just to keep you around since you've raised the level of debate. lol
If we don't understand it, it's not a law. It may be a fact, but we cannot call it a law until the scientific community has established it as such. For example, until Newton devised the theory of gravity, there was no law of gravity. Gravity did not cease to exist, however the term "law' has specific meanings.However, as I said, it followed a structured pattern and that means laws. If you take away laws (including the ones we don't understand), then you would either see completely random action (didn't happen) or a cosmic error (didn't happen). Of course a cosmic error could only occur if the universe is being processed in some way.
Make no equivocations between laws of physics and laws of nature. I was referring to laws of physics. Flip flopping back and forth between the two can render this discussion pointless. If you are arguing from a philosophical standpoint, that's one thing, but most here are arguing from a standpoint of science and physics.You understand that there are laws we will invent in the future, and laws that we would hypothesize if we had the ability to test them. Whether we are aware of the governances or not, we know their were natural processes that occurred in a logical manner.
=)
BL
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
