Are the existence of matter and energy life's ONLY mysteries?

[Cypress]

you believe there's a "number giver" in the sky.

you're moronic.

Thanks for tacitly admitting you were wrong when you claimed that I totally misrepresented what you wrote in post 131

 

[Bai Lan]

Thanks for tacitly admitting you were wrong when you claimed that I totally misrepresented what you wrote in post 131

yeah.

that didn't happen either, delusional shit heel

 

[Cypress]

yeah.

that didn't happen either, delusional shit heel

When you tried to maneuver the topic away from your claim that I misrepresented what you wrote, that was a tacit admission your claim was bullshit.

 

[Bai Lan]

When you tried to maneuver the topic away from your claim that I misrepresented what you wrote, that was a tacit admission your claim was bullshit.

there is no "number giver", theocratic douche-nozzle.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I'm still hung up on how the universe can be anything but infinite.
First of all, "uni" means "one," so one universe has to include everything, material and/or conceptual.

Second, there's the boundary thing.
How would it be possible to have a finite entity with nothing beyond its finite boundaries?
The nothingness itself would be infinite, hence an infinite universe.

The infinity part is KEY,
because in infinity, the most logical mathematical paradigms would likely manifest themselves
totally randomly--all as a sub-segment of the total random chaos.

I fully admit that I'd rather this universe be random
than be the creation of a vengeful, angry god
capable of creating something so laden with pure misery for so many.

But that isn't really influencing my theory.
My mind has, thus far at least, failed to envision the possibility of a finite universe.
Something is always beyond what we can envvision.
Something always has to come before the first thing we can envision.

Time is a sequential concept, so there has to be an infinite "before,"
even with no baseline to use for the time units themselves.

 

[Cypress]

I'm still hung up on how the universe can be anything but infinite.
First of all, "uni" means "one," so one universe has to include everything, material and/or conceptual.

Second, there's the boundary thing.
How would it be possible to have a finite entity with nothing beyond its finite boundaries?
The nothingness itself would be infinite, hence an infinite universe.

The infinity part is KEY,
because in infinity, the most logical mathematical paradigms would likely manifest themselves
totally randomly--all as a sub-segment of the total random chaos.

I fully admit that I'd rather this universe be random
than be the creation of a vengeful, angry god
capable of creating something so laden with pure misery for so many.

But that isn't really influencing my theory.
My mind has, thus far at least, failed to envision the possibility of a finite universe.
Something is always beyond what we can envvision.
Something always has to come before the first thing we can envision.

Time is a sequential concept, so there has to be an infinite "before,"
even with no baseline to use for the time units themselves.

There's no edge or boundary to the universe, and there is no center to the universe.

We only have souped up chimpanzee brains. I think it's almost impossible for the human mind to envision it, but topologically everywhere is the "center" of the universe, there is no outer boundary, and the universe isn't expanding 'into' anything. It's the space between the galaxies that is stretching.

We don't know if the universe is infinite, but it's just as likely to be finite, because spacetime could be positively curved, and any direction you travel in will eventually, trillions of years later, bring you back to where you started.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

We don't know if the universe is infinite, but it's just as likely to be finite, because spacetime could be positively curved, and any direction you travel in will eventually, trillions of years later, bring you back to where you started.

Wouldn't "curved spacetime " have us inside of a theoretical sphere?
What's outside of the sphere?
I hate my fucking chimpanzee brain,
but it's exponentially finitely better than a trumpanzee brain (.177" est. diameter), I suppose.

 

[Bai Lan]

Wouldn't "curved spacetime " have us inside of a theoretical sphere?
What's outside of the sphere?
I hate my fucking chimpanzee brain,
but it's exponentially finitely better than a trumpanzee brain (.177" est. diameter), I suppose.

except you think open borders and no tariffs is smart.

 

[Cypress]

Wouldn't "curved spacetime " have us inside of a theoretical sphere?
What's outside of the sphere?
I hate my fucking chimpanzee brain,
but it's exponentially finitely better than a trumpanzee brain (.177" est. diameter), I suppose.

A sphere is the basic visual analogy often presented, but I've heard that is simplistic and not quite right. A sphere has a center. There is no 'center' to the universe. Our brains probably cannot envision it, it's only though topology and higher mathematics it can be represented.

 

[Into the Night]

That was precisely my point The concept of numerical quantification is independent of humans.

Nope. No one to count them.

Others on this thread howled at me that the concept of integers and counting numbers had to wait for human invention.

It does, and you never said any such thing (until now).

 

[Into the Night]

Just an honest acknowledgment from you that you have used sock puppets like Perry Phimosis and others. It's not the crime of the century.

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR SOCK PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE, SYBIL!!

 

[Into the Night]

I said nothing about that, but thanks for agreeing with that the concept of numbers exist independently of humans, and weren't created by humans

No, it doesn't, Sybil. There is no one to count them.
Mathematics was created by humans. It is also more than just numbers.

 

[Into the Night]

Physics is natural philosophy, always has been, always will be.

Physics is not philosophy at all. It is a branch of science. Science is not philosophy either, though the word 'science' is defined philosophically.

No. it isn't, it isn't dependent on circular reasoning;

ALL theories begin as a circular argument. A theory of science is falsifiable. That's the only difference.

empiricism as a philosophy

Empiricism is not philosophy. It is observation and the data that results from it. It is also not science.

is by definition required to be repeatable;

Science is not repetition.

the universe itself isn't.

The Universe is not science or philosophy.

That's why they use the term 'theories', to emphasize the limits of language.

A theory is an explanatory argument. It is not beyond the limits of any known langugage.

the rest of your rambling is just bad sophistry.

Obviously, you never learned philosophy at all. Don't feel bad. Very few places even teach it at all.

 

[Into the Night]

A sphere is the basic visual analogy often presented,

A sphere is not an analogy. It is a shape.

but I've heard that is simplistic and not quite right.

Random phrase. No apparent coherency.

A sphere has a center.

So?

There is no 'center' to the universe.

At least that is known. There are no known boundaries of the Universe, and it therefore also has no shape.

Our brains probably cannot envision it, it's only though topology and higher mathematics it can be represented.

The Universe has no known shape or topology. Mathematics is not the Universe. Redefinition fallacy.

You are still bullshitting, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

Ah, I have another mentally ill stalker now; I know I'm doing a good job when these sociopaths start crying everywhere.

Heh. Hugo isn't much of a stalker. He often just gets stuck in stupid ruts, mindlessly repeating himself.
NoName isn't much of a stalker either. He doesn't know much English.

 

[Into the Night]

You haven't changed your name in over a week. Running out of personalities?

I just call him NoName. That is the name I will use whenever I run the Monthly Contests as well. He changes his nym more often then it takes for the Moon to orbit the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm still hung up on how the universe can be anything but infinite.
First of all, "uni" means "one," so one universe has to include everything, material and/or conceptual.

Second, there's the boundary thing.
How would it be possible to have a finite entity with nothing beyond its finite boundaries?
The nothingness itself would be infinite, hence an infinite universe.

The infinity part is KEY,
because in infinity, the most logical mathematical paradigms would likely manifest themselves
totally randomly--all as a sub-segment of the total random chaos.

I fully admit that I'd rather this universe be random
than be the creation of a vengeful, angry god
capable of creating something so laden with pure misery for so many.

But that isn't really influencing my theory.
My mind has, thus far at least, failed to envision the possibility of a finite universe.
Something is always beyond what we can envvision.
Something always has to come before the first thing we can envision.

Time is a sequential concept, so there has to be an infinite "before,"
even with no baseline to use for the time units themselves.

Units are not a baseline. The baseline for time in this example is 'now'. A baseline is a reference point, not a unit of measurement.

 

[Into the Night]

Wouldn't "curved spacetime " have us inside of a theoretical sphere?

No.

What's outside of the sphere?

There is no known shape or boundary of the Universe.

I hate my fucking chimpanzee brain,
but it's exponentially finitely better than a trumpanzee brain (.177" est. diameter), I suppose.

You're not a chimpanzee.

 

[Daylight63]

No, it's not a sincere attempt to find the truth; it's like you are in Kindergarten. You only cozy up to mentally unstable MAGA morons if you see it as an opportunity to dogpile me,

LOL. You sound like Trump. Everyone is out to get you. Everyone is arrayed against you.

Wow. Pathetic. And you claimed you are an older gentleman? Seriously sad and pathetic. Someone nearing the age of 70 who STILL needs to convince people he's smarter than the average bear.

Pathetic, really.

 

[Daylight63]

Just an honest acknowledgment from you that you have used sock puppets like Perry Phimosis and others. It's not the crime of the century.

I have no sock puppets. Sorry to not fill your narrative, but I suspect you are used to that. Your litany of imaginary grievances seems pretty long. I'm clearly not the only person on here you can't get along with. The ironic thing is we agree politically. I just find your type of desperate intellect-chasing to be pathetic and sad and I find you to be a pitiful, vituperative, angry old fuck.