First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Creation
Posted 4/19/07
^ maybe they have always existed, and, despite taking up an infinite amount of space (due to there being an infinite number) must maintain that "infinity" at a constant level, thereby creating a constant flux due to the expansion and contraction of each universe having a knock-on effect upon the others near it... Just a thought.

Yeah, it does still leave us with the original problem, however it may give us an easier way to explain that problem, rather than having the "something from nothing" theory, which goes beyond human imagination. Or the idea that there is some "space" where there is no "space" ie. zero dimensions.

In the end we would need to be able to conceptualise complete and utter nothingness in order to accept pure (one universe) Big Bang theory as "True".
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/19/07
^ look what I found
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/

Here's what the article says about Occam's:


Ockham's Razor
It seems that the majority of the opponents of the MWI reject it because, for them, introducing a very large number of worlds that we do not see is an extreme violation of Ockham's principle: "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity". However, in judging physical theories one could reasonably argue that one should not multiply physical laws beyond necessity either (such a verion of Ockham's Razor has been applied in the past), and in this respect the MWI is the most economical theory. Indeed, it has all the laws of the standard quantum theory, but without the collapse postulate, the most problematic of physical laws. The MWI is also more economic than Bohmian mechanics which has in addition the ontology of the particle trajectories and the laws which give their evolution. Tipler 1986 (p. 208) has presented an effective analogy with the criticism of Copernican theory on the grounds of Ockham's razor.

One might consider also a possible philosophical advantage of the plurality of worlds in the MWI, similar to that claimed by realists about possible worlds, such as Lewis 1986 (see the discussion of the analogy between the MWI and Lewis's theory by Skyrms 1976). However, the analogy is not complete: Lewis' theory considers all logically possible worlds, many more than all worlds incorporated in the quantum state of the Universe.


ooh and this one:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

sigh I wish I knew more about physics......
20302 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / ..where the trees...
Offline
Posted 4/19/07
Those are quite interesting sites, that they are! althought there are bunch of scientific stuff that I don't understand BUT otherwise it's quite interesting!
Posted 4/19/07
^ In the end all they're saying is - it's a "nice" theory - but we honestly have no idea! - it seems to support MWI in general more than Lewis' theory - which makes sense due to the requirement of the latter to include expansion - which requires something to expand into, ie. nothingness.

and the nothingness - it's unprovable, what do we do? - do we just postulate? - no, we try to find a provable alternative - and then try to prove it - just need to advance space travel a little bit.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/19/07
If the multiverse theory were correct couldn’t we then be in two places at once? Wouldn’t that contradict basic laws of science? Because if there is another dimension, another reality, then couldn’t there be another me? Assuming that there really is, I’m now in two places at once. One me is in this Dimension, the other is in that one.

Then again, maybe we don’t have so much a concept of the laws of creation as we like to pretend we do. Take the concept of God for example. We automatically assume that he’s some magical chimera. Now, I’m not preaching, but rather musing, what if God isn’t magical at all? Perhaps God is merely an entity in which all things are possible by a set of scientific laws that we do not know about. Supper Natural laws, if you will?

It would be something that we perhaps can’t understand, laws above our laws. How to explain this… We’ll we’re carbon based organism right? Let us say that we found another dimension in which things were created out of…. Erm, some other element. Gas. By our understanding of living organism it would not be possible for gas to be a living substance. Here, maybe I can get more abstract about this.

Let’s create yet another dimension. Try and picture that in this version of reality all these creatures are not built up out of atoms, but rather something that we do not know about? Then in their dimension they could be capable of doing things that we in our dimension would perceive as impossible. Maybe then, this being said, what we call miracles are merely scientific happenings that are beyond our comprehension?

This is hard to explain. A better simile might be: God is like sight to a man born blind. Or hearing to a man born deaf.

You understand?

Well then, if this is all true, couldn’t we say that God is a true possibility even on a scientific level?

Well, food for thought. Anyway, OOO! Occam’s razor! I’ll check those pages out A.S.A.P! Thanks man.
5891 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Imagination Land
Offline
Posted 4/19/07
the question u have to answer is: why does existence exist?? (basically no-one can answer that for shit). Why the HELL does matter exist?!?! These two questions drive people insane. If people think of a 'white or black background' as the start of creation< that still IS existence. So why and how does existence exist??


........i guess i'm useless :(
3928 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Jersey
Offline
Posted 4/19/07
^ I have to say you killed this thread and severely reduced the intelligence level with just one post.

Edit: No you're not.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/19/07
^ Not really, he is just curious about existence but is not asking the right question(s).
severely reduced? come on jamehze
3928 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Jersey
Offline
Posted 4/19/07
I'm in a bad mood today. I take my anger out randomly on people. I like the word severely too. I was just being sarcastic on most of that post, too. Feel free to delete.

Edit: Almost forgot to apologize about it to. Again I usually go after a lot of random people sometimes. It's my frustration taking the better of me.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/19/07

^ I have to say you killed this thread and severely reduced the intelligence level with just one post.


Me or Naz? Or both?

Well, if its me then apology excepted. Don't sweat it. Though I don't know what's so horrible about my musings...

Well, whatever the case, I have to say Jam I expected more out of you. Never thought I would see somebody like you act so childish. Rather you were talking to me or Naz I understand completely that anger gets the best of people, but I had figured you as a mature type. Somebody with enough emotional maturity and self control to keep from such outbursts?

Anyway, you don’t have to follow the thread. Also, just so you know, I still respect you as I did before. Just surprised me to see something like that come out of you….
6347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / SDF-1
Offline
Posted 4/19/07

jamehze wrote:

^ I have to say you killed this thread and severely reduced the intelligence level with just one post.


I thought my post already accomplished that.
3928 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Jersey
Offline
Posted 4/19/07
I'm still a kid inside so things come out. I try to be mature, but of course that doesn't always happen. Again my apologies to everyone.

ANYWAY back on topic. I'll attempt to redeem myself for my obvious error.
That question should be more of a philosophy question in my mind at least like "can god make something he cannot lift" or something like that. My reasoning is probably extremely flawed because I'm terrible with that type of philosophical thinking, but existence is here to serve as the antithesis (I think I'm using the wrong terminology) to nothingness. Really bad argument huh?

The idea of multiverses sounds interesting, but my knowledge of physics only extends to basic Calculus based physics and steps nowhere near the bounds of quantum stuff yet. Interesting concept, but I'm completely lost in some of the analysis of it.

Actually I recently read an article about another aspect of the beginnings of life. It states that in 2000, Indian scientists were able to prove that many organic molecules could have landed on Earth from outer space. They were able to prove that adenine could form spontaneously between cyanide between stars and were carried from them onto Earth through meteorites. So the beginnings of life may also be extraterrestrial, too.

I would give a source, but I can't seem to remember where it was from.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/19/07

Jamehze wrote:

I'm still a kid inside so things come out. I try to be mature, but of course that doesn't always happen. Again my apologies to everyone.

ANYWAY back on topic. I'll attempt to redeem myself for my obvious error.
That question should be more of a philosophy question in my mind at least like "can god make something he cannot lift" or something like that. My reasoning is probably extremely flawed because I'm terrible with that type of philosophical thinking, but existence is here to serve as the antithesis (I think I'm using the wrong terminology) to nothingness. Really bad argument huh?

The idea of multiverses sounds interesting, but my knowledge of physics only extends to basic Calculus based physics and steps nowhere near the bounds of quantum stuff yet. Interesting concept, but I'm completely lost in some of the analysis of it.

Actually I recently read an article about another aspect of the beginnings of life. It states that in 2000, Indian scientists were able to prove that many organic molecules could have landed on Earth from outer space. They were able to prove that adenine could form spontaneously between cyanide between stars and were carried from them onto Earth through meteorites. So the beginnings of life may also be extraterrestrial, too.

I would give a source, but I can't seem to remember where it was from


Every boy can make a mistake, but it takes a man to admit he was wrong!

Well, thanks for your contribution. Hmm... That's a hard thing to discuss, I'll need more time to think it over...

So, in the mean time: Neo- I like that comparison about the rat. Very interesting. However, lets look at your grandfather theory. If you go back in time and kill your grandfather it creates another dimension. However, in this new dimension you were never born because you killed your grandfather. If this is so, then you're grandfather was never killed. This being said, wouldn't this just create a time paradox where everything repeats itself?

*fixed by mauz15
843 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F / Cambridge
Offline
Posted 4/19/07
lolz! I just want to add that time travelling theories are really fascinating but they confuse the hell outta me coz then u'd have to rehash the consequences of everything that change when u travelled in the past, the present and the future!!! that's why whenever i read a time travelling fiction book i read it twice!!

and im a roman catholic, so its been preached into my head since i was born that God created life.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/19/07
I see. Makes sense. But yes, this stuff is giving me brain cramps...
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.