nope, just a sign of a fairly good upbringing. of course, that does not exclude you from being stupid, but i like your odds...
some folks let their passion get the better of their courtesy, does not make them bad people.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
- Thread starter Weird
- Start date
- Status
nope, just a sign of a fairly good upbringing. of course, that does not exclude you from being stupid, but i like your odds...
some folks let their passion get the better of their courtesy, does not make them bad people.
I posted this to illustrate the stock put in the surety of science doesn't always pay dividends.
Science, religion are no different than government in that it is created for one purpose (positive) and corrupted to serve another purpose (negative).
They are like fire, they destroy because one of us wills it to be and it can serve us under the same context.
These institutions are man's creation and thus are reflections of man himself.
The analog of creation is all around us, everywhere you look, at every level of existence.
I wonder, when a computers have artificial intelligence and make robots, do the computers look to the world of metal and electronics and think they are the only life in that known world?
Or are they part of a chain of creation that takes many forms from natural earthly biological forms to electronic ones made of metal to chemical ones or even astral ones such as the solar system itself.
Could the lens people use to read ancient texts keep them from seeing what plainly exists all around us?
Could these questions have been answered in antiquity and be known to exist but people today have lost the capacity to find them?
Could our universe and all within be driven by fractal algorithms and could life be composed in ways we never conceived?
Is the universe itself alive?
If it is, did it create us?
Could I be high and rambling?
Can I go one like this for hours?
Is this why I try not to talk too much at parties?
Science, religion are no different than government in that it is created for one purpose (positive) and corrupted to serve another purpose (negative).
They are like fire, they destroy because one of us wills it to be and it can serve us under the same context.
These institutions are man's creation and thus are reflections of man himself.
The analog of creation is all around us, everywhere you look, at every level of existence.
I wonder, when a computers have artificial intelligence and make robots, do the computers look to the world of metal and electronics and think they are the only life in that known world?
Or are they part of a chain of creation that takes many forms from natural earthly biological forms to electronic ones made of metal to chemical ones or even astral ones such as the solar system itself.
Could the lens people use to read ancient texts keep them from seeing what plainly exists all around us?
Could these questions have been answered in antiquity and be known to exist but people today have lost the capacity to find them?
Could our universe and all within be driven by fractal algorithms and could life be composed in ways we never conceived?
Is the universe itself alive?
If it is, did it create us?
Could I be high and rambling?
Can I go one like this for hours?
Is this why I try not to talk too much at parties?
Q
quokka
The Turd Dimension. 
I came up with another theory when i was on the toilet aswell, maybe not so much a 'string theory' as a 'cable theory'.
I came up with another theory when i was on the toilet aswell, maybe not so much a 'string theory' as a 'cable theory'.
Mad Lab
Member
All great questions.
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Last edited:
Your superstitions have no place in a thread supposedly about science.
Maybe you've heard about the first law of thermodynamics: matter cannot be created or destroyed?
Special relativity says that the sum of matter and energy is conserved. So matter can be created from energy (this is what we do at those big particle accelerators) and energy can be created from matter (this is what we do at nuclear power plants). So matter and energy can be converted into one another, but cannot be created or destroyed.
The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though it can be changed from one form to another). It was after nuclear physics told us that mass and energy are essentially equivalent - this is what Einstein meant when he wrote E= mc^2 - that we realized the 1st law of thermodynamics also applied to mass. Mass became another form of energy that had to be included in a thorough thermodynamic treatment of a system.
The point being: there is no such thing as creation. Everything in the universe(s) is, was, and always will be, despite your fantasies about Jesus or any other of the "gods". I'm sticking with Einstein on this, not some message board preacher.
Maybe you've heard about the first law of thermodynamics: matter cannot be created or destroyed?
Special relativity says that the sum of matter and energy is conserved. So matter can be created from energy (this is what we do at those big particle accelerators) and energy can be created from matter (this is what we do at nuclear power plants). So matter and energy can be converted into one another, but cannot be created or destroyed.
The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though it can be changed from one form to another). It was after nuclear physics told us that mass and energy are essentially equivalent - this is what Einstein meant when he wrote E= mc^2 - that we realized the 1st law of thermodynamics also applied to mass. Mass became another form of energy that had to be included in a thorough thermodynamic treatment of a system.
The point being: there is no such thing as creation. Everything in the universe(s) is, was, and always will be, despite your fantasies about Jesus or any other of the "gods". I'm sticking with Einstein on this, not some message board preacher.
Said the man who doesn't know the difference between "to", "too", and "two", or "there" and "they're". Yet you're commenting on evolution, which obviously you cannot grasp, as it violates your creationist views.
Mad Lab
Member
yeah i referenced the same law of thermodynamics a few pages back.
your rant was assuming that infinite theories are proven correct one day? your a little ahead of yourself. i think the scientific community is still split on the idea of a beginning of time vs infinite.
im not really spouting much about my views on Jesus and God, expect rebuttals to your immature comments towards my beliefs.
have you noticed every single one of your comments in this thread had nothing to do with the topic of this thread? All your hear to do is mock certain inserts that i make about the possibility that there is no infinite.
Mad Lab
Member
how many times do people need to correct grammer in an online thread. who wants to delete and retype mistakes when we are conversing amongst each other.
btw, correct grammer and english is not a requirement for a high IQ. many genius minds past and present that dont have proper english skills, but read numbers like mozart felt music. engineers who cant read.
so many empty posts Retro...
Midwest sticky
Resident Smartass & midget connoisseur
Midwest sticky
Resident Smartass & midget connoisseur
And weird has really got me wondering about the universe itself being alive.
Last edited:
One of the most intelligent statements I've seen on this board. A truly precise and concise way of describing how societal (and philosophical) truth seeking institutions are inevitably perverted by the smallness of humans.
Just catching up on this thread this morning. Wow. Some really good posts both pro and con. Enjoyed a bunch of laughs and deep thoughts.
I have to say that I am skeptical of this new theory. Why?
If it were true, there would be no Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
I have to say that I am skeptical of this new theory. Why?
If it were true, there would be no Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
genedigger
Member
im using a wicked shity computer from 2002 its why i cant post pics and i dont know shit about these things.im sorry im not up to par with everyone elses skills.
Hello Retro,
Sorry that I can't quote your post that I'm responding to atm.
My post on Hawkings vs. Albert E, Godel, was strictly in relation to science and not about their personal beliefs. In other words, neither Albert E. nor Godel tried to use an empirical system to try and tackle the metaphysical (i.e: God), since how could the empirical sciences which rely on the observations of the five senses, could deal with "something" that by definition cannot be apprehended physically?
Doing so is a flat out Categorical Error, and termed Scienticism...so either Hawkings has gone loco, looking for attention a la Dawkins, or has been misrepresented by journalists.
Much peace!
Sorry that I can't quote your post that I'm responding to atm.
My post on Hawkings vs. Albert E, Godel, was strictly in relation to science and not about their personal beliefs. In other words, neither Albert E. nor Godel tried to use an empirical system to try and tackle the metaphysical (i.e: God), since how could the empirical sciences which rely on the observations of the five senses, could deal with "something" that by definition cannot be apprehended physically?
Doing so is a flat out Categorical Error, and termed Scienticism...so either Hawkings has gone loco, looking for attention a la Dawkins, or has been misrepresented by journalists.
Much peace!
genedigger
Member
very true bombadil our perception of the world is based on our five senses.you can only discover so much with them,but people will keep trying.meanwhile im going to work on my grammatical errors so i dont end up burning in hell
tesla and newton studied hermetics to build a scientific understanding of the world.
science was born from philosophy and religion, and not having a historical understanding of how they evolved is unacceptable if you are going to pretend to represent science.
mutation and creation can be interchanged depending on vernacular.
algorithmic fractal equations drive AI, the analogies I reference are real.
it is not religion or science I reference but the underlying universe they both look at, not being able to reconcile both shows you have a irrational emotional bias.
you want to make it a discussion of science use science to prove I am wrong.
tell me how did you come into existence?
your moms and dads energies were the same to begin with split in eons past and rejoined in this moment of time?
are we only one singular energy or are we a biological machine that interacts with many energies?
Is using a physics model for base energy incompatible when using it to understand complex life forms?
What has science said about the conglomeration and merging of energies to make something more complex, something that is composed of various energies, matter and even other life forms?
What drives this?
the first law of physics?
energy isn't created or destroyed? but what about when the commingle and become something more complex?
you realize that you are spouting shallow spoon fed arguments by prop scientists that use apples comparisons to judge oranges and criss angel small intellects into thinking they are on to something.
Dawkins claims because DNA structure is the same evolution has no direction yet the forms created by DNA most certainly follow models of every increasing diversity. People who ignore the later prove they simply want confirmation of a belief they hold true and wish to actualize for conscious sake.
Science doesn't know what YOUR claiming it does, it simply confounds those with preconceived notions.
fwiw girls and boys this injun worked with 0 and 1s for many many decades, delusion gets you know where with computers and logic systems. My mind is very sound and very scientific.
I use allegory and esoteric reference to gently open the minds of people the real reality of our existence that lies beyond most peoples perceptions.
its like people using science to grow and breed and then getting substandard or unpredictable results or better yet lacking in a capacity to qualify or quantify their works.
In my profession that would never get you paid.
EVER
I also think that if you need science to help you understand the nature of something around you, you are out of touch with nature itself, and lack the capacity of natural observation.
Deists, Hermeticism, Buddhism as well as a plethora of other religions were born from observation of the natural world.
Science does the same thing, quantifying and qualifying from a different perspective.
I asked open ended questions as I started the thread to open minds to the fallible and evolving nature of science, a pattern you will see exists elsewhere including man.
Keep looking for others to tell you about the world around you
Telling me to keep mu comments elsewhere won't work but it will evoke my ire and I give it better then most.
keep that in mind
If anyone who has been following this thread, wants to watch some really cool, and deep stuff. Go on Netflix and watch "Cosmos". It blew my mind, and I'm not even done with the series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE
ted talk - the science delusion
"The science delusion is the belief that science understands the nature of reality in principle, leaving the details to be filled in"
ted talk - the science delusion
"The science delusion is the belief that science understands the nature of reality in principle, leaving the details to be filled in"
genedigger
Member
spaceandmotion.com have all einstiens quotes on god and science.homeboy believed in a creater just not one that personally dealt with humans one on one. in one quote he calls people as good as dead if they cant look in awe at the world around them,and that this awe is the feeling at the center of religion. some of this sounds like he ripped it right outta the bible.
- Status
