Is the macro "crazy" related to the micro "crazy"?, page
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times
Topic started on 13-11-2011 @ 11:40 AM by soldita
We are always attempting to look out further and further into space in search of answers to the big questions of life. But isn't it more practical to be looking right under our noses?

I know some people are going to bring into this thread pictures of brain and the universe, but those are bunk because we dont know what the universe looks like.

So, I believe that a truly infinite universe is not possible. By truly infinite I mean a pac man situation where one goes in one side comes out the other is not truly infinite, 100+1+1...+1 is not truly infinite but simply growing, and a universe that is simply incomprehensible is not truly infinite. Truly infinite means right now at this point the universe goes on forever, its that simple and that complex, but after much contemplation I dont believe it to be possible.

So now we can begin the cliche but mindblowing questions of what comes after the universe, or how does it end, what is outside the universe, and it truly is mindblowing. The only logical (i dont assume these questions are answered "logically") is at some point something "crazy" happens.

Now lets look inward. Everything is made of something. And when we get down to the smallest theorized products, quarks, some assume these build everything. But it must be a fact that these are also made of something and so on and so on. But at some point something "crazy" must happen and something must come from nothing.

Now my question or theory is that both the large "crazy" and the small "crazy" are related in some way and it is much harder to know the large "crazy" than the small "crazy"

Am I crazy?


reply posted on 13-11-2011 @ 12:37 PM by soldita
reply to post by AllUrChips



I'm 2nd year in law school. Thanks for reply, no thanks for it being completely meaningless. Sociology really has nothing to do with anything I posted.



reply posted on 13-11-2011 @ 12:40 PM by AllUrChips
Originally posted by soldita
reply to
post by AllUrChips



I'm 2nd year in law school. Thanks for reply, no thanks for it being completely meaningless. Sociology really has nothing to do with anything I posted.

WOW! Why so defensive man? I asked a simple question? Also it has EVERYTHING to do with sociology. If you were in law school surely you have taken soc 101. Where you would learn that. Also, My 2nd line had my response to your question. Did you fail to read that?


reply posted on 13-11-2011 @ 12:46 PM by soldita
reply to post by AllUrChips



I apologize I took your reply the wrong way. And I feel somewhat neglected.

Anyway, I really dont understand what the substance of your reply conveyed, can you rephrase it please?


reply posted on 13-11-2011 @ 01:14 PM by soldita
reply to post by el1jah



Thanks for the reply. I dont really subscribe to the multiverse but I am leaning toward our universe being more than meets than eye.


reply posted on 13-11-2011 @ 01:18 PM by el1jah
reply to post by soldita



yeah I figured I would contrast what you meant by micro, I understand you mean by extending the sense with a microscope or other divice, not actually turning the senses on themselves.


reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 01:44 AM by Astyanax
reply to post by soldita


To answer these questions, or even to ask them, we have to make an enormous assumption: namely, that the way humans have evolved to perceive their environment is a true and accurate representation of reality.

But we already know this assumption is false. Humans cannot perceive objects in quantum superposition or make intuitive sense of relativistic effects. We experience time as unidirectional, which it probably isn’t; and somehow we all seem to experience the same moment in time simultaneously, which is a strange and weird coincidence for which there is no explanation. Our senses and brains are simply unable to process information about such phenomena in any way except intellectually – and that, of course, is no use at all.

There is also a great deal going on in the universe that we cannot perceive at all because we lack the sensory equipment. We are blind to radio waves and most of the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum; we have no specifically electric or magnetic senses either, as far as we know; nor can we perceive the products of radioactive decay until they start killing us. That’s scarcely a comprehensive list, but it will do to be going on with.

Given these obvious shortcomings of our perceptual and conceptual capabilities, the questions in your OP may not be useful for an understanding of reality. Most probably, they exist because our perceptions and concepts of reality are just models, and bear as much relation to the real world as Plato’s shadows to the world outside his Cave. To insist on answers, and to condemn either science or religion for not being able to provide them, may be to miss the point altogether.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ask the questions. However, they really are rather tired and threadbare, especially in this forum, where someone or other – usually someone with religious doubts he is trying to quell by projecting them onto others such as atheists and evolutionists – is forever asking them.

The correct answer to all the questions you ask in your OP is We Don’t Know. That doesn’t mean that the answers supplied by religion are true. In fact, it suggests strongly that they are false – answers that have been fabricated purely because the question exists and needs, or seems to need, answering.

edit on 15/11/11 by Astyanax because: we don’t know.



reply posted on 15-11-2011 @ 12:55 PM by wirehead
Originally posted by soldita
I know some people are going to bring into this thread pictures of brain and the universe, but those are bunk because we dont know what the universe looks like.

Huh? We don't know what the universe looks like? Look up, on a clear night.


Originally posted by soldita
So, I believe that a truly infinite universe is not possible. By truly infinite I mean a pac man situation where one goes in one side comes out the other is not truly infinite, 100+1+1...+1 is not truly infinite but simply growing, and a universe that is simply incomprehensible is not truly infinite. Truly infinite means right now at this point the universe goes on forever, its that simple and that complex, but after much contemplation I dont believe it to be possible.


The "pac man universe" you describe is technically known as finite, unbounded space. Our best measurements to date suggest that the universe is not bounded.


Originally posted by soldita
Now lets look inward. Everything is made of something. And when we get down to the smallest theorized products, quarks, some assume these build everything. But it must be a fact that these are also made of something and so on and so on.

I don't think that it "must be a fact" that structure continues indefinitely to smaller scales. There are a lot of problems with that model, first realized by Democritus around 300 BC, which led him to postulate the existence of atoms. This was long, long before anything close to modern chemistry.
en.wikipedia.org...
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



How Are Plants Aware of the World Around Them?
  Posted 4 days ago with 5 member flags
The Genesis Code
  Posted 11 days ago with 4 member flags
Explain Diversity Reloaded
  Posted 11 days ago with 3 member flags
Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge
  Posted 6 days ago with 3 member flags
The carrot (chicken or egg , vegetable version)
  Posted 5 days ago with 3 member flags
A theory of proof of a God
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags
Eden: The Double Sided Coin
  Posted 6 days ago with 2 member flags
We are all connected with nature and The Universe IMO
  Posted 5 days ago with 2 member flags