Logic that will make your head spin

Originally posted by randyvs
No replys will be answered save those from the OP.

So basically, I will only talk with other people that agree with me? If you only want responses from the OP, you should probably just U2U him

Is the glass half full or half empty? It's based on your perspective quite simply. - Substantial

Not everyone will believe what others may think, but will take it into consideration and observe for themselves. Everything is relative.

reply to post by wrathofall


not quite sure, matter can be transformed to energy so maybe before the big bang there was just energy and the big bang turned it into matter.

but then that before you start thinking about things like string theory and anti-matter and alternate dimensions...... my head hurts again

reply to post by filosophia

which is impossible since nothing can come from nothing.

You're wrong here, modern advancements in quantum physics and technology both predicts, illustrates and confirms quantum theory which states something can indeed come from nothing.

reply to post by KonquestAbySS


I personally disagree with your statement that everything is relative.

For example, your existence. I perceive it, you do, as do your family and others. It's an obvious fact you are alive and a person. Thus, your existence is not relative.

reply to post by ErgoSphere


True something can come from nothing, because it maybe be something we know nothing about.

However you know nothing about me, so how do you figure you know something of me?

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by dudeawesome

 

#1 Is saying that things can't come from nothing, because nothing doesn't exist, it never says nothing exists in the affirmative.

Infinity never changes, so it does not go from a thing to nothing, whereas with movement and time, a thing tries to move from one point to another, or from one time to another, and it must travel an infinite number of points to go a finite point, which is impossible. This doesn't mean time goes into nothing, but rather time and movement are impossible. It is never a possible thing, so it doesn't change from possible to impossible, but rather is impossible and always remains as such.

I thought that a finite point only exists in your head... virtual.
Its infinity that is reality.
Only when you try to measure infinity does it become impossible.
If you never measure it (no finite points) its perfectly fine.

Originally posted by CharterZZ
reply to post by filosophia

 

It just goes to show that the human language we have made up just isnt good enough to describe the universe.

Or alot of other things for that matter.

Interesting read anyhow.

edit on 18-9-2011 by CharterZZ because: (no reason given)

you're right...we do not have the "language" for something that we do not understand...yet.

example: how birds fly....we NOW KNOW that air going over the top of the wing takes more time to travel than air going under the wing, due to the curve of the wing...thus creating an upward pressure...but...3000 years ago we had no idea how the bird stayed in the air, therefore, we had no words to describe the fluid dynamics of "lift"...simplistic, i know, but it's the best i can do off the top of my head with "my" language.

Number #3

I know some of these philosophical questions are meant to boggle and make your head spin---but some are just that. They're just there to get you to think and enjoy thinking.

There is absolutely no logic to number 3 that is applicable in our reality. If I want to walk to the TV from my couch, the short distance I am covering and the energy I am exerting to get there are more than ample to complete the journey. Because I arrive there, it can't be impossible to do so.

I'd say that our knowledge of reality has to be re-written!

These are all true under the constraints of physical law.

There is so much more than just physical reality that the questions are no longer valid when when put in context with all that is existence.

reply to post by Gorman91


Well thank You for that. I'll be reading some.

reply to post by Amaterasu


I just want you to know that it is possible. Just don't bound your ideas to half-known sciences that are still be researched.

Originally posted by rickyrrr

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Or it may be that the universe creates it ex nihilo. But it IS a science question, because science is the art of explaining things in demonstrable and repeatable ways. (And why can One not assert an unrestricted negative? Come to think of it... What do You mean by that to begin with?)

An unrestricted negative is a statement of the form "There is no X" With the implication (often unstated) that "There is no X *anywhere*" To demonstrate that "there is no X anywhere" one has to search everywhere and fail to find it. Because it is impossible to do that (as far as I know) anybody saying "There is no X" and does not add "Inside this box" (a restriction) could not possibly know for a fact what they are saying.

So in a statement claiming there to be a form of zero point energy, say, arriving into a device for extraction, and further saying that this energy "came from nowhere" one would have to have searched everywhere to account for all energy and demonstrated that no energy was lost elsewhere.

So, what if somebody demonstrated a machine that extracted energy from the potential in sideral mass separation? Say there is a machine that produces a few miliwatts, and apparently nothing nearby seems to be loosing energy, but that somehow this device (purely hypothetical by the way) is causing the distance between the earth and all other sideral mass to shrink infinitesimally. A machine that did this would appear to anybody testing it to violate the second law of thermodynamics. The true source of energy would be undetected and the device would be considered a fraud, regardless of how well it worked.

-rrr

I understand. Thank You. In the case of the ZPE, the plenum energy, that it is flowing into all points (that We are aware of) of the universe suggests that either it comes from another part of the universe or from a dimension other than Our 3D + 1 set of dimensions.

Or ex nihilo.

Unknown. But the point is that regardless of where it comes from, extracting it would not alter that other place - the energy is coming in anyway - all We would be doing is turning it into useful energy, converting it for Our use. And there is plenty to work with.

And when You get right down to it, in practical terms, if someOne built Your hypothetical device, Hume would be lauded and the energy used. (Or, today, Hume would be suppressed...) Regardless of the fault in estimating where the energy came from, the energy availability would be used - until a problem was detected.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

I just want you to know that it is possible. Just don't bound your ideas to half-known sciences that are still be researched.

Thank You, Gor. I have been meaning to get back to You on that other thread, but (in case You missed it) My life is disintegrating. I really didn't have that much time in the whole scheme of things. (Recap: www.abovetopsecret.com... )

reply to post by Amaterasu


Sorry to hear.

All the more motivation to invent hopefully.

reply to post by filosophia


These are all well known paradoxes that the pre-socratic philosopher Xeno and others developed. They all deal with the phenomena of infinite regression, either in structure or causation. Aristotelian philosophy did away with these paradoxes by only allowing immediate and proximate causes for argumentation, and making the appeal to an infinite regress a fallacy. They are fun to think about, however.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by CharterZZ
reply to post by filosophia

 

It just goes to show that the human language we have made up just isnt good enough to describe the universe.

Or alot of other things for that matter.

Interesting read anyhow.

edit on 18-9-2011 by CharterZZ because: (no reason given)

you're right...we do not have the "language" for something that we do not understand...yet.

example: how birds fly....we NOW KNOW that air going over the top of the wing takes more time to travel than air going under the wing, due to the curve of the wing...thus creating an upward pressure...but...3000 years ago we had no idea how the bird stayed in the air, therefore, we had no words to describe the fluid dynamics of "lift"...simplistic, i know, but it's the best i can do off the top of my head with "my" language.

using finite examples will never explain infinity. language is finite. space and time are within the mind. in reality there are no individuals. the reality is neither finite nor infinite, and beyond existing and non-existing.

it just is.

and you can be it.

i cant possibly conclude any other answer.

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by Julie Washington
...and it still doesn't answer what came first...

the chicken or the egg?

they both came at the same time, what is in the egg? a chicken......think about it real hard

What came first, the male or the female?

They came at the same time!

reply to post by filosophia


#1. Nothing can come from nothing. Consequently, something can not become nothing.
Nothing can and does come from nothing. Consequently, something can become nothing and nothing can be something as well.

#2. The multiple universe is a self-standing contradiction, thus it can not exist.
The multiple universe exists, self-standing contradictions are always on the move.

#3. Movement is impossible.
It is quite possible. All you have to do is move the universe around you, then you will get somewhere.

#4. Aging is impossible
Aging is possible as everybody can see. How is that possible you say? Because nobody even the most slow in existence would like to be as they are for all of existence. And besides to age you need time, and so time was created.

#5. Space does not exist.
Spaces do exist, there is even some between my sentences.

#6. The universe must be either finite or infinite, and not both.
The universe begs to differ. And it would not exist if it were not both.

#7 "Particulars" are not "Universals"
They might not be universals, but they are only as vast as you can look into them, and grasp them. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck...It's a duck. Can one duck describe all other ducks?