CBR has the answer

More
18 years 11 months ago #16975 by Ryan2006
The multi universe theory is an active theory. I just added that it was in order, that they orbit. The multi universe theory states many universes. If it is the definition of universe that is in question it is only because what we think of the word universe encompassess all. Like I said in other threads I believe our universe is bounded, but there are other bounded universes in the multi universe theory so that outside our universe is another kind of space inbetween the other bounded universes. I am just saying that they are in order and that the universes fit into solar systems, galaxies of universes, and so forth into infity I don't know what is so hard to understand about that except that science demands a scientific expanation. I thought I would hypothesis anyway and that is an educated guess and then see if I could come up with an explanation for why I thought it was that way if it means changing the name of the universe you can count that someone else has all ready done that.

ryan Henningsgaard

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 11 months ago #16885 by Harry
Replied by Harry on topic Reply from Harry Costas
Ryan

The Idea is OK.

I know of the theory and its fine.

But! if you add information to it or make statements about it than you will have someone who will disagree.

And thats life,,,,,,,,,,,,,,keep smiling

But!!!!!! never, never, ever give up on your ideas, never close the door or let anybody else do so, until you are 120% sure.

As for bounded, i disagree. The universe is like a big endless ocean
all parts are free to flow and recycle. We do have multi-units within the universe. Some call these units as Unit Universes. The question is where do you draw the line, to call a unit. Some call a cluster of super clusters as a unit.

Have A Nice Day

Harry

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 11 months ago #16887 by tvanflandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by thebobgy</i>
<br />it is foreverism that needs an explanation not creationism; the question being; when did forever begin?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">And how square is a circle? In both cases, the question contains a contradiction. In your question, "forever" (I usually say "eternal" to avoid ambiguity) has no beginning; i.e., eternal means forever in both directions, forward and backward in time.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I mean, if you have a belief in the foreverism of the universe then I would think you would have a plausible causation for your belief, seems logical to me.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">First, I never allow a belief to creep in when I'm thinking about science. Your phraseology tends to put science and religion on comparable levels by refering to scientific conclusions as "beliefs", meaning something accepted on faith. But it is rather the opposite: In good science, beliefs often have the status of biases, and one must establish controls in designing objective tests so that such biases cannot influence the outcome of hypothesis testing. Otherwise, most test results will be rationalized to confirm the favored hypothesis, resulting in the likelihood of self-deception.

The "cause" for concluding that the universe is eternal is that the alternative, creation ex nihilo, requires a miracle. In deep reality physics, we (meaning physicists who accept the "no miracles" premise) agree not to invoke miracles as explanations because that ends investigation and the possibility of understanding or predicting. So as long as an explanation exists requiring no miracles, it must be preferred (by deep reality physicists) to one requiring a miracle.

Of course, it might be reality that the universe was created by a miracle. If so, scientific investigation and understanding end at that point, and there is nothing else to research along those lines. But logically, why would anyone chose a dead-end option if it is not yet necessary because a fuller understanding remains attainable?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if I disagree it is not intended to antagonize but I did pay my dues and answer the questions and I do think I should have right to express myself.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We have no problem on this Message Board with thoughtful disagreements. More than that, we try to maintain the posture of welcoming having our errors pointed out, because that invariably removes roadblocks to progress and allows our understanding to evolve. The objectionable message problems referenced in another thread were mainly from off-topic and excessively long posts.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Moreover, Webster’s defines miracle as divine intervention or causation, I am not asking you, or anyone, to accept divine intervention but it certainly is an explanation and it most assuredly provides a causation.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not to reduce your point to semantics, but miracles are not an "explanation" for anything because they defy understanding. You probably meant to say that a miracle (such as that in Genesis) provides a description, which is far short of an explanation.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We do not have the ability to create but does that preclude the possibility that ability to create does not exist?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The existence of miracles itself requires a miraculous being. Given the total absence of testable evidence for the existence of either, speaking of them at all usually removes the discussion from the realm of science.

Indeed, logic dictates that if real miracles such as creation ex nihilo appear to exist, we are instead simply seeing limitations on our ability to detect causation with existing measuring devices. For example, our "reality" might be simply that of a holodeck, such as seen in Star Trek episodes. As Arthur Clarke noted, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. But it is not real magic, and we as a species can hope to one day fully understand all the processes we see. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 11 months ago #16976 by Harry
Replied by Harry on topic Reply from Harry Costas
Hello tvanflandern

Nice writing,,,,,,,,,down to earth




Harry

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 11 months ago #17162 by Ryan2006
Harry you may be right that the universe is an ocean without boundried universes, but if I hypothesize differently it shouldn't be sweat off either of our shoulders.

Happy Day!

ryan Henningsgaard

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 11 months ago #17163 by thebobgy
Reply to original post by tvanflandern on - 11 Jan 2006 : 04:49:01

Thank you Tom, for a most excellent response. Down to earth so to speak. Not being a scientist and all it would seem that I best go back to my think tank. But before I make the coffee and close the door there are, as you may have guessed, a couple of small issues to address. The first of which is the following exchange, which is two part;

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">tbg... it is foreverism that needs an explanation not creationism; the question being; when did forever begin?
tvf... And how square is a circle? In both cases, the question contains a contradiction. In your question, "forever" (I usually say "eternal" to avoid ambiguity) has no beginning; i.e., eternal means forever in both directions, forward and backward in time.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Before I answer, let me refer back to a previous statement of yours in which you made it clear that the question of origin is only addressed with logic;

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">tvf...Whether the universe had an origin or always existed is not one that can be answered with data. It can only be addressed with logic...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

As to the first part, actually, neither of our questions are contradictory but rather a study in logic which is acceptable according to your previous statement. How square is a circle?...A! not very! And then, when you consider that the area of a circle is defined in square inches and its circumference is defined in linear inches the apparent contradiction is not so far fetched.
As to the second part, “(I usually say “eternal”...)”. Not so, in a previous post of yours of 04, Jan. 2006: at 12:46:31 you made the statement; “Fortunately, there is a logical alternative to creation <i>ex nihilo</i>, which is that the universe has existed forever.” Interchanging those words does create ambiguity because, although similar, Webster’s does define each differently; “Eternal” is defined as, “continued without intermission, perpetual.” which does not allow for the cyclic conditions that are inherent with the known universe. “Forever” however, does not carry that, continued without intermission, perpetual, requirement.

In the following exchange I do take some exception;

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">tbg... I mean, if you have a belief in the foreverism of the universe then I would think you would have a plausible causation for your belief, seems logical to me.
tvf... First, I never allow a belief to creep in when I'm thinking about science. Your phraseology tends to put science and religion on comparable levels by refering to scientific conclusions as "beliefs", meaning something accepted on faith. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You twist my words to define my “phraseology” so I will again refer to Webster’s;
“belief:
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially: a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence” And;

“tenet:
a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially: one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession ”

Belief then, means somewhat more than acceptance on faith. Now, I agree that when preparing for an experiment beliefs have to be put to the side yet, when the experiment is done a belief in the results is permissible without affecting the original experiment. Your statement was to the effect that the deep thinking physicists held, endorsed and proposed, after the experiment, that since nothing could be created nor destroyed everything that exists therefor, exists forever so; is that, or is it not, a tenet or belief? There is no reading or rereading of my statement that would imply that the belief that I referenced was based on anything but an evaluation of the facts that were available the deep thinkers at the time they drew their conclusion(s).

Now, having stated all of that and with the being coffee is ready I am ready to go in the tank, figuratively speaking, and ponder. And here is what I will ponder; I was not aware of a Law of physics that states that nothing could be created nor destroyed and at first blush I have generated two possibilities, 1.) Nothing can be created therefor, everything that exists must exist forever. Or, 2.) Nothing can be created, therefor, everything only appears to exist giving your hologram deck idea some credibility. I will also ponder if there might be a third possibility. Now, where is that sugar bowl. Thank you for your time.
thebobgy

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.392 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum