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: 6
56
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
If you travel at the speed of mind for a billion years, you will still know nothing of the Creator.
Why do you think we are in the veil of ingnorance, we are not suppose to know.
edit on 18-9-2011 by googolplex because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by filosophia
 


Some of those did, yes. Make My head spin. But the first lies on the ground that something can't come from nothing. This can be shown to be false in that virtual particles "spring from nothing." Or would You call them and their energy nothing?

And, in truth... How do We KNOW something cannot come from nothing?



Do they spring from nothing or do they spring from somewhere else?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


i'm sorry, but i disagree with each point. billy preston's 1975 masterwork "nothing from nothing" disproves the first theory quite soundly. brother, if you don't have the funk, all you got is junk.

2,3 & 4 i can't remember what they are, but i read them and disagreed.

#5 - it doesn't hold water. all trees are trees, but not all trees are Pine Trees. it's just the nature of the way things works. i didn't make that up, i was born into the world just like you.

i did enjoy reading your tid-bits but it will take more to make my head spin. i respect that you tried. i was very active in the hippie days, you get my drift, so i've danced on the stars and tasted a few planets. but please do more posts, this was fun.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
thank you for this thought experiment

some critical thinking skills reveal the conundrum is not a matter of the existence of motion, the universe, or some-'thing'; rather the extrapolated measurements becoming misappropriated with the thing measured.

that is motion exists independent of the numerical values of measurement we ascribe to it - thus the problem is not whether a thing is in motion, rather the infinite reduction of measurement values

the same is true: that the universe - infinitely large, small, simple and complex, exists, irrespective of our rudimentary understanding of mathematical equations to measure it - imagine a hologram

and the idea that there is a thing called nothing, no-'thing', is an empty concept, a self-contradictory contrivance for the convenience of comparison, conveying an incomplete cognition of the cosmic constitution

just some word play ~ have fun


∞LOVE∞



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
If you travel at the speed of mind for a billion years, you will still know nothing of the Creator.
Why do you think we are in the veil of ingnorance, we are not suppose to know.
edit on 18-9-2011 by googolplex because: (no reason given)


bravo! you make a most excellent point. it is after this life when all will be revealed. hot chocolate & cookie for you!



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Maybe there never was a nothing. If someone were able to destroy the Universe and there was nothing, how long do you think nothing would last for? Maybe if you reach a state of nothing you collapse over your infinite nothingness til you have something. So possibly in that case nothing can not really occur either because no one would be there to observe the nothing.

I guess this could A....A1...B theory could be applied to the Big Bang. Crazy.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Did anyone answer what the difference between point a1 and b is?

From a to a1 is the same as from a to b. Only difference is your selection of measurement.
From a to a1 you could add more points like a0.5 and just add more decimals, but you could replace any of those with b by changing the legnth of measurement.

Doesnt this always allow movement?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Mind = blown

Perhaps the idea of a holographic universe seems more plausible when looking at the universe from the most simplistic of views.

After all, the more simple the question, the more complex the answer.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
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



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I think of the something from nothing question this way.

The simple fact of saying the word "nothing" makes that "nothing" exist. You CANNOT Experience nothing because you ARE something. The same rule prevents you from EXPERESSING nothingness in any way shape or form (Including Language).

So Nothingness is beyond our senses. If we cannot observe nothingness then it is impossible for us to know if something came from nothing or not. At least scientificly,

As for the universe not being able to be infinite and finite at the same time...

Take a ruler and measure half of that. Now measure half...Then another...And another...

Get where I'm going? You can try to use logic all you want. But it's there. Infinity within a finite space.

I don't remember where I got it from but there's some info about the amount of energy of some really really small particale is equal to all the energy in the universe. Don't take my word for it though. Do research.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by LargeFries
 


It will still take you a few hundred million years to know enough to say that,, revealing , almost never ending...until nothing remains.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Ok I'll throw in my two bobs worth.

Point 1. Nothing can come from nothing. Consequently, something can not become nothing.

Things come from other things, bit by bit. Statements such as that above are irrelevant.

Point 2. The multiple universe is a self-standing contradiction, thus it can not exist.

Clearly the universe does exist or maybe we're just a computer program existing in someone else's universe either way there is a universe so the reasoning is wrong and not open to useful speculation, at least not for a very long time yet.

Point 3. Movement is impossible.

Again, clearly movement is possible so the reasoning is flawed. While you can keep adding numbers after the decimal at a point they become irrelevant. See Planck's Constant.

Point 4. Aging is impossible (similar to the theory of movement).

Much the same as the point above. However it should really be considered as rates of decay and not time.

Point5. Space does not exist.

Why then can we not measure neutrinos. Because of the space.

Point 6. The universe must be either finite or infinite, and not both.

That's just stupid. If something is infinite then it can exist with finite things and a finite number of them. See above for space, it just gets bigger.

Point 7. "Particulars" are not "Universals"

See point 6 and add more stupidity.

Cheers



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Zeno's paradox is resolvable by realizing infinite series can converge. Basic freshman calculus shows this



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
could God heat a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it????



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   

There couldn't have been a big bang, unless ALL known matter was within that first...something. So we are to believe that all infinitesimal matter was contained within that very first spark? All matter that was, is and ever will be?

Yah. It's referred to as the Monoblock. Big Bang Theory - Summary

Aside from the Bang theory, there is the Steady-State Theory(everything has been everywhere always), and the Cyclic Universe Theory(endless reruns of the big bang, forever).

Right now, Big Bang is most supported by observed phenomena. This was not always so.


Currently there are three major pieces of evidence that have led the Big Bang theory to hold sway in cosmology today.
1) During the early development of Microwave communications systems, researchers from Bell Labs found a background noise, a hiss' they could not explain. Further research and experimentation led them to conclude that this noise was coming from radiation that permeates the universe and was caused by the explosion of the mono-block that we call the Big Bang theory.
2) Estimates of the size and distribution of matter throughout the universe has led cosmologists to conclude that there would not be enough of a gravitational effect to halt the expansion of the universe given its current speed of expansion. This leads to the conclusion that the universe will continue to expand indefinitely.
3) Given the current computed course and speed of the stars that have been studied in this context up until now, their paths can be backtracked to a common point of origin.


Note that "most supported" is not the same as "completely supported". Some observed phenomena still remains outside current models, but that probably reflects an incomplete understanding of quantum phenomena and how such phenomena may translate into macro phenomena. CERN built the LHC in part to search for an as-yet unobserved particle postulated by the Big Bang theory: the Higgs Boson. Supposedly, if they succeed in identifying a Higgs particle, the Big Bang will pretty much be locked in as the accepted theory, with minor adjustments to fit unexplained stuff.
There's also the Multiverse idea, but that really seems to be on a different level to me. The Multiverse and the Big Bang Theory for "our universe" can both be right at the same time.
edit on 9/19/2011 by Tsurugi because: Forgot to add the URL for the Cyclic Universe link



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I think all of this points to our reality being holographic.

Our real selves exist in a different dimension, and this dimension is a made up one that obviously, when speaking logically, seems to make so much sense that it doesn't.

And i think that's proof right there that this world has much more going on than we think we know, and that we can even explain.
edit on 19-9-2011 by dannotz because: gramah



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by wrathofall
It's an infinitely difficult concept.


Yes it sure is:
-Some people think that infinitely big and infinitely small are two separate things.

-Some people think that zero is the same as nothing all the time.
Zero can actually be a positive number.
-And i bet nobody knows how to show an example of how zero can be a positive number/or something?




edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Forgive me if my mind is more offended than blown.

The notion that "infinite things cannot consist of finite things" is not even remotely logical; if the semantics are really that important to people then some primary education is in order. It's like saying all bears are mammals, so all mammals are bears.


Originally posted by filosophia
#1
Derp.


#2. The multiple universe is a self-standing contradiction, thus it can not exist.


The particles of the universe have always been.


#3. Movement is impossible. (tortoise paradox)


The set of the paradox is non-existent because I am already at "point A" for one, dummy. Also, distance is not an object.


#4. Aging is impossible (similar to the theory of movement).


Time is not an object.


#5. Space does not exist.


The definition of space is the area left when things are separated merely by air, not if things don't have touching particles between them.


#6. The universe must be either finite or infinite, and not both.


Infinite things don't have to consist only of other infinite things, especially in a giant vacuum.


#7 "Particulars" are not "Universals"

A universal 'horse' is not a particular horse, because the universal refers to all horses and not one horse. Similarly, one horse can not describe the universal horse. Thus, there is no logical reason to call a particular horse a 'horse.'


There isn't a single link in this "logic" anywhere.

Let me try with this un-linked "logic" breed:

-Bananas are not apples. Therefore, bananas are flashlights.

-All that I have is two slices of bread. Therefore, I do not need more than just bread to make a sandwich.

-Frost collects on grass. Therefore, frost gives you frostbite. So, frost does not exist.

And here's some of the silly semantic tripe:

-Man broke the sound barrier; sound is not in-tact.

-I waded through the crowd; people are water.

-Drugs kill; drugs cannot help heal anything.
edit on 19-9-2011 by Partisanity because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2011 by Partisanity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
I can see sense in the holographic idea.

Yah, ok, if we apply 3 dimensional thinking to nth dimensional concepts, we are going to have a lot of gaps and what ifs.

The simple truth I believe is that observation is reality. The universe wants to be observed. Observation is measurement. Measurement is comparison. Comparison is change. And just when you think you've come to an understanding of how,why,where,who,what and when.....you realise that all happened already and mental catch up has missed the boat.

I ( you, we, they, etc ) can make one of two possible choices, denial or acceptance. Anything inbetween is unreal, and cannot exist.

Or can it....



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


the only thing making my head spin is the fact that people pass these off as " logic "




top topics



 
56
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join