34 replies to this topic

[Silent_Killa]

as I said, it depends on your definition of the universe. If you consider it how far matter has reached, then it is finite. However, if you consider it space, then it has no beggining, and no end, because it is nothing, in the three dimensional sense anyways.

[AdmiralGT]

How can you define nothing as being part of the universe? If there is nothing there then it's illogical to call it part of the universe since you could reduce it to the area where something exists. If you draw a circle you say the area of the circle is pi * r ^2. In your case, you say the circle is infinitely large because even if there is nothing outside the circle, you can define the circle as having that area outside of it, negating it actually being a circle.

[Ash]

Rats. I had a really long post here...I'm not typing it all out again

Basically what I said (IIRC) was that:

By the very definition of infinite there would be no beginning OR end. But if there's no beginning, and the universe has always been, then how did it get there? Because it can't have just popped out of thin air to have always been there.

More to the point, what difference does it make whether the univere comes back for a big crunch or expands forever? Why should this be of concern? For one thing, we'll all be long dead before it happens, and for two, I don't think it's going to affect planetary life...all the galaxies will end up inside their own black holes anyway, therefore there will come a time that there is nothing but black holes. But the universe as a bubble will still exist. It is what is within the universe that will not.

[MSpencer]

The entire big crunch theory is simply a guess, something that is used to explain a large increase of the universe. However, at the time of the Big Bang, there must have been a finite amount of mass at the core of the explosion, which means that eventually it has to stop expanding. Nobody really knows the answer, so it's foolish to contemplate the end in terms of what will happen.

[anonymous]

Here is a thought.
Matter can be manipulated at a molecular level.
We as humans think we can solve the question of what exsistence is through visual que's.
When in reality vision is a perception of what our mind thinks matter is.
To further understand exsistence we have to realize we can't put a bow around exsistence and put it in a gift box for our own amusment.
At that point we ARE the universe along with everything else.
Exsistence goes way deeper than solid mass.
Solid mass is made up of "tiny" particles that come together to form a structure that we can see.
When in reality it is a perception of what our eyes tell us we see.
I can't believe the physical eye is the only Truth to understanding exsistence.
If you are an entity without form you can pass through matter obviously giving you different "visual que's".
At that point you are "outside the box" not "inside the box" where you can only see walls.
The universe and galaxies can be our subconcious garbage. By visualizing matter we may be trash collectors while missing the true nature of what we are which is formless.
You can liken it to a never ending stream of connected concious energy.
When we rely on visual que's to decipher infinities code it should be a validation of what we can not see but should know to be true.
If we believe in infinity than we are infinity.
Goes back to one of my "obnoxious" quips:
In order to see infinity you must first be infinity.
Once infinity is established there is no turning back you are infinite no matter what you can "see". You are and always will be a part of that never ending stream whether you like it or not, there is no turning back. You may not know yourself as you know yourself now but you were concious at one point. Once your "mind" is awakened how can it disappear? It may lay dormant but it can not "forget" Life.
Our bodies are a perception of our visions reality.
A microscope can see things we can not see.
What form do you think humanity would have taken if it could see at a molecular level?
One more little question to add: underneath the molecular level can there be a cohesive transparency that can take "solid" form and become formless while still retaining its cohesive transparency?

[Ash]

That theory relies explicitly on the concept of a soul, and too heavily on the concept of an afterlife, for me to swallow

If humanity could see at a molecular level, humans would look the same, just with much bigger eyes. And we'd see one another's individual molecules rather than the sum of those parts.

To see things in that much detail would serve no useful purpose in this world. Not even Amoebas 'see' the microscopic molecules they ingest and digest. They just follow trails of useful molecules to ares where they are abundant.

Although I have to agree with you on one score...we do have more chance of finding out about existence and everything when we're dead than we do in this reality (assuming that there IS a soul and suchforth). Same as we'll only know for sure there's an afterlife when we die.

[anonymous]

Lets expound shall we............

If humanity could see at a molecular level, humans would look the same, just with much bigger eyes. And we'd see one another's individual molecules rather than the sum of those parts.

What association with space can you automatcally make from the above statement?

What entity has been depicted over and over in books and movies and first hand eye witness accounts? LOL

Being you are never at a loss for words Comarade a simple one word answer will do.
If you answer the question this will end up being a pretty insightful topic don't you think?

And by the way I don't have a superiority complex, i'm just a simpelton.

[Ash]

Lets expound shall we............

If humanity could see at a molecular level, humans would look the same, just with much bigger eyes. And we'd see one another's individual molecules rather than the sum of those parts.

What association with space can you automatcally make from the above statement?

Um...pass.

What entity has been depicted over and over in books and movies and first hand eye witness accounts?  LOL

I don't see what God's got to do with humanity having bigger eyes if it could see smaller molecules.

Being you are never at a loss for words Comarade a simple one word answer will do.
If you answer the question this will end up being a pretty insightful topic don't you think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I dunno, it might be. But you'll have to answer the first of your questions yourself because I haven't the foggiest

And yes, I know I talk too much. It's a trait nothing's gonna get rid of

[anonymous]

Ok, Comrade I will give u a pass, even though you are the one who brought it up and you know as well as I do it is not god that i am alluding to. LOL

Anyone have an answer to the big eyes question?

[AdmiralGT]

I think he's trying to say that "much bigger eyes" is a common dipiction of aliens.

Why would you want to see everything at a molecular level? We evolved to be able to see at this resolution and spectrum because it naturally suits our environment. We've been conditioned over centuries of evolution to be able to do what we can do. What use is it being able to see at a molecular level if your fingers are millions of molecules wide and you can only use things millions of molecules wide? If you cannot manipulate a single molecule, why do you need to see it?

[duke_Qa]

Ok, Comrade I will give u a pass, even though you are the one who brought it up and you know as well as I do it is not god that i am alluding to. LOL

Anyone have an answer to the big eyes question?

he's saying that if we could only see the molecules of fellow humans, we wouldnt know what they were. we would only see legions of round things and we couldnt make sense out of it. we would be walking around believing that all there is to life is those round things.

the same goes to the universe ofcourse. compared to the universe, we can only see molecules, thus we can't see the whole picture. to realize what the universe is, we would have to create some sort of gigantic macroscope the size of a galaxy practically to realize whats going on in the universe.


on another note. i believe that the big-bang theory will in the future be looked upon as our "the world is flat" theory. theres so many things we know so little about that we can't possibly even start to think about all of it.


on the topic of where one would go in the afterlife if there is room for that in the universe. for all that we know, there could be a parallell dimension where the soul resides. i personally like the 40k theory about the warp there[basically a dimension which is pure energy which comes from the feelings and souls of people.], and i know about cult-religions that believe that the brain is basically a antenna connecting the soul to the body in the physical dimension.

[Silent_Killa]

back to the circle thing, doesn't somebody have to draw the circle?

perhaps our universe is just a molecule of something bigger... ah, well, some things we'll probably never know, and at the same time, probably best that we don't.

[BlckWyerve]

But it's our destiny to try and find out. We don't know what we don't want to learn until it's too late to forget it.

Edited by BlckWyerve, 27 July 2005 - 01:44 AM.

[Ash]

More poignant words have rarely been spoken, BlckWyerve. I think that's going as an MSN quote

[BlckWyerve]

I have an epiphany of poignancy every once and a while. Maybe not enough, but meh.