About the universe generally

[PWrong]

*cough* religion *cough* flying spaghetti monster *cough*

Pffft. Everyone knows the flying spaghetti monster has been proven.

Emperical evidence:
http://www.venganza.org/images/fsm-spotting.mpg

Logical proof:
1. Everything has a creator
2. Flying spaghetti monsters don't need a creator
3. Therefore the flying spaghetti monster created everything.

[houserichichi]

1. Something is a subset of everything.
2. If everything has a creator then something has a creator.
3. Flying Spaghetti Monster is something.
4. If something has a creator then Flying Spaghetti Monster has a creator
5. If Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't have a creator then it is not something.

Feel free to print this out, erase Flying Spaghetti Monster, and replace it with the name of your favourite deity.

[Hugh]

Logical proof:
1. Everything has a creator

2. If everything has a creator then something has a creator.

These points may be incorrect. It is possible that something could have always existed, so it would not need a creator. In fact, because something cannot come from nothing on its own, it is actually necessary for something to exist that has always existed, but that's another thread. :wink:

Getting back to the original idea in this thread, we may be 4d tetrabeings ourselves but we just don't realize it yet. We see a 3d slice of what is around us. It's possible that what we are looking at (and with) is more than 3d.

[Nick]

1. Something is a subset of everything.
2. If everything has a creator then something has a creator.
3. Flying Spaghetti Monster is something.
4. If something has a creator then Flying Spaghetti Monster has a creator
5. If Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't have a creator then it is not something.

Feel free to print this out, erase Flying Spaghetti Monster, and replace it with the name of your favourite deity.

I think you should modify your post to be surrounded in [pwned], [/pwned] tags.

[houserichichi]

These points may be incorrect.

Mine is only correct under the two assumptions I numbered 1 and 3. Sorry for interluding/hijacking again...I've been quite bad for that these days.

[PWrong]

1. By definition, FSM is a being than which nothing noodlier can be imagined.

2. A being that necessarily exists in reality is noodlier than a being that does not necessarily exist.

3. Thus, by definition, if FSM exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is noodlier than FSM.

4. But we cannot imagine something that is noodlier than FSM.

5. Thus, if FSM exists in the mind as an idea, then FSM necessarily exists in reality.

6. FSM exists in the mind as an idea.

7. Therefore, FSM necessarily exists in reality.

[houserichichi]

Hazaa! All I wanted was to be corrected. I'll sacrifice a meatball in his honor tonight.

</hijack>

[jinydu]

Logical proof:
1. Everything has a creator

2. If everything has a creator then something has a creator.

These points may be incorrect. It is possible that something could have always existed, so it would not need a creator. In fact, because something cannot come from nothing on its own, it is actually necessary for something to exist that has always existed, but that's another thread. :wink:

In fact, according to classical mechanics and classical atomic theory, the universe is made completely of atoms, tiny, indivisible objects that obey Newton's laws. Furthermore, the current positions and velocities of all the atoms completely determines the positions of the velocities of all the atoms at all times in the past and future. So from this point of view (which is admittedly outdated, but I think still informative), nothing has a creator and everything has always existed and will continue to exist forever.

[Nick]

Logical proof:
1. Everything has a creator

2. If everything has a creator then something has a creator.

These points may be incorrect. It is possible that something could have always existed, so it would not need a creator. In fact, because something cannot come from nothing on its own, it is actually necessary for something to exist that has always existed, but that's another thread. :wink:

In fact, according to classical mechanics and classical atomic theory, the universe is made completely of atoms, tiny, indivisible objects that obey Newton's laws. Furthermore, the current positions and velocities of all the atoms completely determines the positions of the velocities of all the atoms at all times in the past and future. So from this point of view (which is admittedly outdated, but I think still informative), nothing has a creator and everything has always existed and will continue to exist forever.

1. Atoms are tiny, indivisible and obey Newton's laws.
2. Atoms velocities can be used to determine their
velocities of the past and the future

Conclusion: Atoms has always exsited.


I think you missed a couple steps. I don't understand how determining their past and future velocities prove that they have always existed. They could have been created, and they could eventually end, regardless.

[Hugh]

They could have been created, and they could eventually end, regardless.

I agree irockyou. They could have been created, and they may be destroyed or changed in form in the future.

Also jinydu, are atoms the tiniest form of matter and are they indivisible as you say, and what about energy?

[xhutchinson]

how about we look at this from a different perspective.

Lets say we are traveling through space and find a planet that has beeings far less advanced than us, their walking around with weapons and threaten the exsistance of other beings on their planet because their "different" this hostititly would suggest that it would not be wise to go visit, even though you could probibly take them with your greater power, (one would hope that you would also have a greater and more advanced mind set to not do so). and you would most certainly not offer any "advancements" as it could lead to misuse.

However you might choose to just watch from a distance, and perhaps when that "race" has advanced enough you may introduce your self

[xhutchinson]

nothing has a creator and everything has always existed and will continue to exist forever.

may i suggest a slight change to the above, I agree that at a atomic level it is quite possible for everything to have already exsisted, but other Atomic reations, and formations can change something to something new, and by doing so creates a new, BUT replaces the old.

therfore if true there was never any more, and never any less. Everything has just.... "changed"

[jinydu]

They could have been created, and they could eventually end, regardless.

I agree irockyou. They could have been created, and they may be destroyed or changed in form in the future.

All that is required for an atom to exist for all time is for its position to be defined for all time. I think that is a characteristic of any solution to Newton's Second Law.

For example, the position of a single particle that is not acted on by an external force is always of the form:

x = x0 + v0t

A single particle acted on by a net external force of the form F = -kx has a position function of the form:

x = Acos(wt + phi)

Also, it is well known that in a system with one planet and one star, the planet and star orbit their common center of mass in an elliptical trajectory. Since this trajectory repeats itself forever, the position of the particle is defined for all time. (Ok, this is not the best example, since technically, planets and stars are not atoms, but bear with me).

To put things precisely, what I am saying is this:

1) The universe is made up of n atoms (where n is evidently a very large positive integer).

2) All of these particles currently have a position and velocity and obey Newton's Laws (not strictly true in our universe, but I am talking about a hypothetical universe where Newton's Laws are exact).

3) Using Newton's Second Law and our knowledge of how the particles interact, we can set up a system of n second-order ordinary differential equations where the independent variable is time and the dependent variables are the positions of each of the particles.

4) After applying the initial conditions, there exists a unique solution to this system of differential equations. That is, there exist functions x_1(t), x_2(t), ... x_n(t) that give the positions of the first, second, ... nth particles as a function of time, respectively. Furthermore, these functions are defined for all real values of t.

5) Therefore, for any time T, we can plug t = T into each of the n functions to obtain the positions of each of the particles at time T. Since each of the particles occupies a position at time T, all of the particles clearly exist at time T. Since we can let T be any real number, it follows that all of the particles exist for all time.

Also jinydu, are atoms the tiniest form of matter and are they indivisible as you say, and what about energy?

No; of course we now know that there are particles smaller than atoms, and in any case, Newton's laws don't work too well on a sub-atomic scale. That is why I added the qualification "according to classical mechanics..."

[PWrong]

Classical mechanics predicts a big crunch. Since there is no cosmological constant, gravity tends to pull everything in the universe towards the centre. If we watch the history of the universe backwards, we conclude that it had to have a beginning.

So even in classical mechanics, there has to be a big bang and a big crunch. Of course, Newton believed that God would intervene and stop the big crunch.

[Nick]

They could have been created, and they could eventually end, regardless.

I agree irockyou. They could have been created, and they may be destroyed or changed in form in the future.

All that is required for an atom to exist for all time is for its position to be defined for all time. I think that is a characteristic of any solution to Newton's Second Law.

For example, the position of a single particle that is not acted on by an external force is always of the form:

x = x0 + v0t

A single particle acted on by a net external force of the form F = -kx has a position function of the form:

x = Acos(wt + phi)

Just because you can put a number into a formula doesn't meant the atom existed during that time. You might find a velocity that the atom would have had if it had existed then; but maybe it wasn't created then.

[jinydu]

Just because you can put a number into a formula doesn't meant the atom existed during that time. You might find a velocity that the atom would have had if it had existed then; but maybe it wasn't created then.

True, but that would contradict the predictions of the model I explained above. So if the assumptions and reasoning of the model above were true (which, in the case of our universe, is not the case), then the atoms would have no beginning or end.

Perhaps I should have stated it this way: A universe where everything always existed and would continue to exist forever is conceivable. Apparently, this is not the case in our universe (as shown by the Big Bang); but the reason why we conclude that the universe did have a beginning is because of observational evidence, not because a universe without a beginning is logically inconsistent.

[Hugh]

A universe where everything always existed and would continue to exist forever is conceivable. Apparently, this is not the case in our universe (as shown by the Big Bang)

There can't be a big bang without something pre-existing to make the bang occur wouldn't you agree?

[jinydu]

There can't be a big bang without something pre-existing to make the bang occur wouldn't you agree?

Not necessarily. Time could have begun at the instant of the Big Bang; I'm quite sure this is actually the majority view among scientists.

[Nick]

There can't be a big bang without something pre-existing to make the bang occur wouldn't you agree?

Not necessarily. Time could have begun at the instant of the Big Bang; I'm quite sure this is actually the majority view among scientists.

Good luck persuading Hugh that its possible. I certainly tried!
http://tetraspace.alkaline.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=523

[jinydu]

Well, this is just a variant of the claim that "everything has a cause". That claim is, after all, just an assumption, not a logical necessity.

[Hugh]

A universe where everything always existed and would continue to exist forever is conceivable. Apparently, this is not the case in our universe (as shown by the Big Bang)

There can't be a big bang without something pre-existing to make the bang occur wouldn't you agree?

Not necessarily. Time could have begun at the instant of the Big Bang; I'm quite sure this is actually the majority view among scientists.

For now, let's focus on the "something" factor, rather than time. The majority view among scientists who believe in the Big Bang, say that there was a pre-existing singularity which went bang. Do you know of any theories which involve the universe creating itself from absolute nothingness (no pre-existing quantum foam or multiverse etc.)? The way I see it, there was "something" there that had to have always existed.

Well, this is just a variant of the claim that "everything has a cause". That claim is, after all, just an assumption, not a logical necessity.

I agree. Actually I would say that it is a logical necessity that there is something that did not have an original cause, that "something" that has always existed. Something cannot come from absolute nothingness.

[Nick]

Seriously, you'll never convince Hugh:

A universe where everything always existed and would continue to exist forever is conceivable. Apparently, this is not the case in our universe (as shown by the Big Bang)

There can't be a big bang without something pre-existing to make the bang occur wouldn't you agree?

Not necessarily. Time could have begun at the instant of the Big Bang; I'm quite sure this is actually the majority view among scientists.

For now, let's focus on the "something" factor, rather than time. The majority view among scientists who believe in the Big Bang, say that there was a pre-existing singularity which went bang. Do you know of any theories which involve the universe creating itself from absolute nothingness (no pre-existing quantum foam or multiverse etc.)? The way I see it, there was "something" there that had to have always existed.

Well, this is just a variant of the claim that "everything has a cause". That claim is, after all, just an assumption, not a logical necessity.

I agree. Actually I would say that it is a logical necessity that there is something that did not have an original cause, that "something" that has always existed. Something cannot come from absolute nothingness.

See what I mean?
He doesn't see the connection between time and "something".

[houserichichi]

Since causality applies within our universe as far as we know we assume it to be true for all cases. Our models are all built off of it and so far I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest otherwise. On the other hand the singularity at Big Bang does not exist within our universe. In fact it IS our universe. Since we assume causality within the singularity but not outside (we assume "nothing", in the strict sense of the word, is beyond the boundary of the universe), there is really no argument against a singularity "sprouting from nothing". Succinctly, causality necessarily applies inside the universe but not necessarily outside.

Debate :wink:

[Nick]

Uhmmm... could you explain to me what "causuality" means?

[houserichichi]

Ever seen The Matrix? The Mirovingian (French guy) talks about it in the second one.

Causality is literally the pair of cause and effect. Every effect has a cause. Things happen because other things happen. In our universe, for example, you kick a ball (cause) and it begins to roll (effect). The sun warps spacetime due to its mass (cause) and so the Earth revolves around it because its motion is in a straight line through curved space, called a geodesic (effect). You steal a pack of delicious Skittles because you crave them desperately (cause) and they throw your mugshot up on the internet and label you a thief for all eternity and you have a difficult time finding a job for the rest of your life (effect)*.

However, outside our universe we have no reason to suspect that causality applies as we don't know if the laws of physics, or philosophy for that matter, are applicable. Since physics is defined within spacetime and outside the universe is not, by definition, within it, we have no reason to assume this causality monster makes any sense. HENCE, things can happen (effect) without a cause...emphasis on the word "can".

* I've never stolen Skittles before.

[Nick]

Oh. I see what you mean now... since spacetime is undefined outside of the Universe, the laws of physics can be broken (or merely bent).

[houserichichi]

Not so much "undefined"...the universe IS spacetime so what's outside of its boundary is not. But yeah, that's my general argument and I'm open to criticism.

[Nick]

I think its undefined, because there is no space or time outside of it; so its like zero. Its undefined.

[papernuke]

no on e really knows if fourth dimensional beings have really visited the 3rd or lower dimensions, and just because we are in a lower dimension then they dosent mean that their inteligence if greater than our own.

[Hugh]

Since causality applies within our universe as far as we know we assume it to be true for all cases. Our models are all built off of it and so far I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest otherwise. On the other hand the singularity at Big Bang does not exist within our universe. In fact it IS our universe. Since we assume causality within the singularity but not outside (we assume "nothing", in the strict sense of the word, is beyond the boundary of the universe), there is really no argument against a singularity "sprouting from nothing". Succinctly, causality necessarily applies inside the universe but not necessarily outside.

Debate :wink:

There is no case that we know of where something comes from absolute nothingness. All that you are saying is that it is possible that it could have happened in the case of our universe but there isn't any evidence to suggest it. Do you know of any scientist who has seriously proposed it?