It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Logic that will make your head spin
page: 11share:
Here is a great interview of 'Physicist' Brian Green on the Colbert Report!!
Brian Greene on the Colbert Report 1-27-2011
Brian Green is the author of "The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos"
Brian Greene on the Colbert Report 1-27-2011
Brian Green is the author of "The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos"
edit on 19-9-2011 by hero_25 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Julie Washington
...and it still doesn't answer what came first...
the chicken or the egg?
That's because that was not in this thread but in another thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by SOILDERSUNITEDFORCHRIST
reply to post by Jepic
nonsense just because we cant see or measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist(dark matter,wind,infrared light,x rays,magnetic waves ,angels ,GOD,demons,)all exist.
very immature topic
If that is in relation to my comment, are you saying you can't see time passing by?
You can't cover the distance between two objects?
You can't see space?
Because the OP is trying to deny that these three principles of time, distance and space which clearly exist all around us, actually don't exist.
And by the way. All these people that you see in this thread discussing this topic they couldn't know less about are evidently talking trash.
Originally posted by Jepic
If that is in relation to my comment, are you saying you can't see time passing by?
You can't cover the distance between two objects?
You can't see space?
Because the OP is trying to deny that these three principles of time, distance and space which clearly exist all around us, actually don't exist.
And by the way. All these people that you see in this thread discussing this topic they couldn't know less about are evidently talking trash.
Actually my friend, you do not see time passing by, you cannot cover distance, nor can you see space. All these things are created in our mind. Can you prove that you exist without the aid of the 5 senses? If not, then your presence here is just part of the picture created in my mind. So too is my presence merely an image in yours.
Which of us is real?
I am the only one I know.
With Love,
Your Brother
P.S. Have we so devolved in our hearts that we have comercialised Love? Does the word really have to be linked to a dating website where people can search diligently through a menu of characteristics that they find perfect rather than find the perfection in the random people they meet. (rant over)
edit on 19-9-2011 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)
reply to post by filosophia
Maybe, nothing as we experience it doesn't exist because there's no such thing as nothing (0) hence 0 to +/- 0 from/to
Wait....did I get that right
Maybe, nothing as we experience it doesn't exist because there's no such thing as nothing (0) hence 0 to +/- 0 from/to
Wait....did I get that right
edit on 9/19/11 by ThePublicEnemyNo1 because: (no reason given)
Never mind
edit on 9/19/11 by ThePublicEnemyNo1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Akasirus
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
I should have explained that I was afraid of derailing the thread. So your reasoning may seem valid, but I asure you, it isn't the case. If we can stay ontopic I will debate with you.
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu
Sorry to hear.
All the more motivation to invent hopefully.
Who? Him or Me? He's the inventor. Not Me. I'm a problem-solver, a philosopher, a pragmatist, a graphic artist, a writer, and other media stuff I do.
I wish Him well. But He's outie. I have to find solutions for My life on My own.
reply to post by filosophia
to the OP
Have you just started reading Plato's accounts of Socrates? Because that blurb looks exactly like some of the vague straman arguments that Socrates used to argue his points
ie "nothing can come from nothing, therefore the soul cannot die ad reincarnation must be true because there must be a finite number of souls"
that is the short version of one of his more famous diatribes, of course with that kind of logic where specificity and reality aren't taken into account, it's just a strawman argument
I did various philosophy courses; and I was tasked once with supporting Socrates arguments; the solution was to say that our biological matter ( carbon, hydrogen etc,) are re used for life and that we do get reincarnated in a sense through biological offspring and "genetIc memory"
when you simplify it too much, it fails to be a valid argument
unless of course you can define what a soul is and prove it exists (belief is not proof)
to the OP
Have you just started reading Plato's accounts of Socrates? Because that blurb looks exactly like some of the vague straman arguments that Socrates used to argue his points
ie "nothing can come from nothing, therefore the soul cannot die ad reincarnation must be true because there must be a finite number of souls"
that is the short version of one of his more famous diatribes, of course with that kind of logic where specificity and reality aren't taken into account, it's just a strawman argument
I did various philosophy courses; and I was tasked once with supporting Socrates arguments; the solution was to say that our biological matter ( carbon, hydrogen etc,) are re used for life and that we do get reincarnated in a sense through biological offspring and "genetIc memory"
when you simplify it too much, it fails to be a valid argument
unless of course you can define what a soul is and prove it exists (belief is not proof)
Originally posted by IAMIAM
Originally posted by Jepic
If that is in relation to my comment, are you saying you can't see time passing by?
You can't cover the distance between two objects?
You can't see space?
Because the OP is trying to deny that these three principles of time, distance and space which clearly exist all around us, actually don't exist.
And by the way. All these people that you see in this thread discussing this topic they couldn't know less about are evidently talking trash.
Actually my friend, you do not see time passing by, you cannot cover distance, nor can you see space. All these things are created in our mind. Can you prove that you exist without the aid of the 5 senses? If not, then your presence here is just part of the picture created in my mind. So too is my presence merely an image in yours.
Which of us is real?
I am the only one I know.
With Love,
Your Brother
P.S. Have we so devolved in our hearts that we have comercialised Love? Does the word really have to be linked to a dating website where people can search diligently through a menu of characteristics that they find perfect rather than find the perfection in the random people they meet. (rant over)edit on 19-9-2011 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)
All these things are absolutely not created in our mind. The universe isn't part of you. You are part of the universe.
You? One of the most ignorant and imperfect beings in the universe has the audacity to believe that the world actually is created in your mind? Well waky waky my friend because the prove to the contrary is right here.
The prove being that when you die the world doesn't die with you. It continues to exist. Your mind merely allows you to experience this world to a degree or another depending as what animal you come. The more intelligent your mind is, the more you understand of this world.
I once read that every human loses 27 grams of unaccounted for weight at the point of death.
If true, that sounds alot like proof, if you combine it with the premise that energy is neither created or destroyed.
I also find it interesting that these spiritual matters CAN never be proven or disproven.
I bet that fact means something in and of itself....
If true, that sounds alot like proof, if you combine it with the premise that energy is neither created or destroyed.
I also find it interesting that these spiritual matters CAN never be proven or disproven.
I bet that fact means something in and of itself....
Originally posted by Jepic
All these things are absolutely not created in our mind. The universe isn't part of you. You are part of the universe.
You? One of the most ignorant and imperfect beings in the universe has the audacity to believe that the world actually is created in your mind?
Such a harsh judgement my friend. Certainly such words must come from the most high?
Originally posted by Jepic
Well waky waky my friend because the prove to the contrary is right here.
Where? The text on this screen? Is text on a screen sufficient proof for you on all things? If so, do not dispute me.
Originally posted by Jepic
The prove being that when you die the world doesn't die with you. It continues to exist.
How do you know this? Have you died and been reborn to testify that the world did not end? Again, you are only making an assumption based on what YOU have experienced. You have no idea what I have experienced. You do not know where I come from or where I go. Your testimony is not proof of anything except to yourself. If you could acknowledge that, then I could reason with you. As you cannot, I will leave you to your kingdom of absolutes on the matter.
Originally posted by Jepic
Your mind merely allows you to experience this world to a degree or another depending as what animal you come. The more intelligent your mind is, the more you understand of this world.
Again, your mind is the only one you can speak for. Anything else is deception.
With Love,
Your Brother
P.S. I and the Universe are one.
edit on 19-9-2011 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)
reply to post by IAMIAM
Experience is so believable, so compelling, that sometimes the play seems very real, but make no mistake, my 'sky blue' is not your 'sky blue.'
There is no telling, really.
That's why it's called a mystery....
Just enjoy that, for now.
Experience is so believable, so compelling, that sometimes the play seems very real, but make no mistake, my 'sky blue' is not your 'sky blue.'
There is no telling, really.
That's why it's called a mystery....
Just enjoy that, for now.
Originally posted by Jepic
Originally posted by IAMIAM
Originally posted by Jepic
If that is in relation to my comment, are you saying you can't see time passing by?
You can't cover the distance between two objects?
You can't see space?
Because the OP is trying to deny that these three principles of time, distance and space which clearly exist all around us, actually don't exist.
And by the way. All these people that you see in this thread discussing this topic they couldn't know less about are evidently talking trash.
Actually my friend, you do not see time passing by, you cannot cover distance, nor can you see space. All these things are created in our mind. Can you prove that you exist without the aid of the 5 senses? If not, then your presence here is just part of the picture created in my mind. So too is my presence merely an image in yours.
Which of us is real?
I am the only one I know.
With Love,
Your Brother
P.S. Have we so devolved in our hearts that we have comercialised Love? Does the word really have to be linked to a dating website where people can search diligently through a menu of characteristics that they find perfect rather than find the perfection in the random people they meet. (rant over)edit on 19-9-2011 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)
All these things are absolutely not created in our mind. The universe isn't part of you. You are part of the universe.
You? One of the most ignorant and imperfect beings in the universe has the audacity to believe that the world actually is created in your mind? Well waky waky my friend because the prove to the contrary is right here.
The prove being that when you die the world doesn't die with you. It continues to exist. Your mind merely allows you to experience this world to a degree or another depending as what animal you come. The more intelligent your mind is, the more you understand of this world.
Looks like you missed his point. Your convictions, including your belief that the universe continues to exist is a mental state in your own mind, along with everything else. That is not to propose solipsism, but to deny the false ilusion that ones own subjective experiences represent ultimately reality.
Here is proof: an electron is a particle right? Well, not anymore, at the moment the best of our phicisists have put it back on the table. And the debates that sustained the particle view were fueled by the objectivistic convictions of those th were certain it was a particle, because, it shoots like one.
Is time what we think it is? As it turns out some researchers are evaluating that time might occur in quanta.
You and me are not only slaves of our senses, but also slaves of our mental frameworks, nothing we perceive is free from coloring or prejudice. The worse is the prejudice we don't even believe we have.
.rrr
Originally posted by jimnuggits
Experience is so believable, so compelling, that sometimes the play seems very real, but make no mistake, my 'sky blue' is not your 'sky blue.'
Absolutely not my friend. I do not envy your sky blue, but I will gladly share mine with you and yours with me, that we both may see just how wondrous sky blue can be.
With Love,
Your Brother
reply to post by Jepic
Here is a thought experiment: you have a head, you have seen it in the mirror, felt it with your hands, etc.
You have only ever perceived your own head by your senses. The precise degree to which you know your own head is limited by the electrical impulses that have been recognized by your brain which, as it turns out, has never been directly seen. This concept of your own head is all you know your own head by, and it only exists in inside your own mind. You probably rarely see the back of it!
Your mind knows your head and experiences all the world around you, yet it fits inside the very head that contains it. And this concept of you thinking about your head is also inside it, along with the rest of your own incomplete, but growing model of the universe, a growth that may or may not be converging with.... the real universe.... except that ..... the real universe is only also perceived by other people around you in the exact way you perceive it: in small incomplete windows. So without an "ultimate objective observer" the only support you have for its realness is the consistency of your own observations.
.rrr
Here is a thought experiment: you have a head, you have seen it in the mirror, felt it with your hands, etc.
You have only ever perceived your own head by your senses. The precise degree to which you know your own head is limited by the electrical impulses that have been recognized by your brain which, as it turns out, has never been directly seen. This concept of your own head is all you know your own head by, and it only exists in inside your own mind. You probably rarely see the back of it!
Your mind knows your head and experiences all the world around you, yet it fits inside the very head that contains it. And this concept of you thinking about your head is also inside it, along with the rest of your own incomplete, but growing model of the universe, a growth that may or may not be converging with.... the real universe.... except that ..... the real universe is only also perceived by other people around you in the exact way you perceive it: in small incomplete windows. So without an "ultimate objective observer" the only support you have for its realness is the consistency of your own observations.
.rrr
1)The law of conservation of matter and energy. The term nothing implies the absence of any matter and energy of any/all types. Matter and energy
cannot be created or destroyed. If we are considered to be living in a universe of matter and energy, then we did not come from nothing. The real
question is "Is our system and isolated system?"
2) Dimensionality, matter and mass. Matter has mass and takes up space. Taking up space implies dimensionality. Infinitely small cannot work because there is the existence of matter which has dimensionality. Infinitely large universe implies the mass and energy of the universe grows infinitely, thus being created from something ad infinitum (is the system isolated or not?)
3)Movement is not impossible. The statement is a trick. It says explicitly that you MUST make the movement as stated to A(1), A(2), etc. However, the reality is that even though you MUST go to A(1) you are permitted to PASS THROUGH A(1) on your way to B.
4)aging - Trick statement. see above.
5)Space between objects is another trick of semantics. Space, as used in the first situation is not the same as a vacuum.
Space in the second example implies a vacuum, and ether/oblivion are antiquated, self defining and not an adequately descriptive term.
6)"Universe cannot be infinite because finite things cannot add up to infinity?" That's funny, because if you add an infinite number of finite dimensional units you get to infinity pretty easily.
7)The trick of the universal horse comment is not the word horse but the word universal. Right from the outsetthey define universal as meaning a representation of all horses collectively. Therefore any single horse not referred to as the universal horse could never be an exact duplicate of the collective.
That was fun.
Great post
2) Dimensionality, matter and mass. Matter has mass and takes up space. Taking up space implies dimensionality. Infinitely small cannot work because there is the existence of matter which has dimensionality. Infinitely large universe implies the mass and energy of the universe grows infinitely, thus being created from something ad infinitum (is the system isolated or not?)
3)Movement is not impossible. The statement is a trick. It says explicitly that you MUST make the movement as stated to A(1), A(2), etc. However, the reality is that even though you MUST go to A(1) you are permitted to PASS THROUGH A(1) on your way to B.
4)aging - Trick statement. see above.
5)Space between objects is another trick of semantics. Space, as used in the first situation is not the same as a vacuum.
Space in the second example implies a vacuum, and ether/oblivion are antiquated, self defining and not an adequately descriptive term.
6)"Universe cannot be infinite because finite things cannot add up to infinity?" That's funny, because if you add an infinite number of finite dimensional units you get to infinity pretty easily.
7)The trick of the universal horse comment is not the word horse but the word universal. Right from the outsetthey define universal as meaning a representation of all horses collectively. Therefore any single horse not referred to as the universal horse could never be an exact duplicate of the collective.
That was fun.
Great post
There is not any fact of that, the particules appear to be coming from nothing because they are popping in and out of existance. They don't know where they come from, some think they are coming from a different universe or what.
Originally posted by ErgoSphere
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.
They just make it up as they go, just like Hawking Radation and the Cosmic Constant.
They are also trying to say the Univese popped in from Nothing, and when the Universe popped in it also created a anti-Universe.
To me this seems kind of stupid to say the Universe and anti-Univese Popped into the Nothing, so there must also be a Anti-Nothing, if you go by the Laws of Physics.
edit on 19-9-2011 by googolplex because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by filosophia
If the universe is a thing
edit on 18-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)
Shouldn't we answer that question first?
edit on 19-9-2011 by bottleslingguy because: forgot reply
Originally posted by ErgoSphere
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.
I was going to mention that but then I thought about the energy that causes things to behave the way they do and then even the fluctuations of that energy must be caused by something or influenced by something. Personally I believe consciousness is a type of energy fluctuation or frequency.