But I've been gone for a few hours now. Still gotta do stuff. See you later — Vincent
If you know that, then thinking you know a lot is the dumbest thing there is. — Vincent
But you are being equally inaccurate with 'we don't know anything yet!' I think the opposite is true, I think we have gained incredible knowledge of the Universe in the 'as you and I agree,' very short amount of cosmic calendar time we have been seeking knowledge.People really think we've accomplished something. That we have already discovered everything. We don't know anything yet. — Vincent
Why 6D in particular as opposed to the 10D of string theory? — universeness
I have a serious problem at this point! how can that which is 'virtual' 'fill' anything.
Virtual particles are mathematical only. There is no empirical evidence that they exist IN REALITY. — universeness
Why is the god posit a more acceptable first cause or prime mover than 'a mindless spark that started everything and no longer has ANY existence?' — universeness
Science was struggling for any answers prior to the big bang. Now, science
or some scientist says correctly that space preceded the big bang. Science can never arrive at the question of God; it is beyond the paradigm. — val p miranda
What do you mean by 'terrible'? Do you mean it terrifies you or it does not satisfy you?because "a mindless spark that started everything and no longer has ANY existence" is terrible explanation.
First of all we know absolute nothing of that mindless spark and it's very likely we'll never do — SpaceDweller
How far back does your first cause (mindless spark/god posit) have to be sent before your ego is satisfied that to us, this meaningless first cause is just that, meaningless. — universeness
But it's only one way, I asked you why it's a better way than string theories 10 spatial dimensions and you have not answered me.Because this is the way to create a geometric structure that looks point-like in three independent directions, while keeping an apparent 3d bulk space. — Hillary
First cause is logical explanation — SpaceDweller
which is "God" that sacrificed itself to create everything that we know about today. — SpaceDweller
This means such "God" is dead for good, and if you accept this proposal. this means it cannot come to existence anytime again because it's dead, therefore not possible multiple "first causes" could happen, therefore there must have a beginning.
If you don't agree with that, please solve infinity or give an alternative example with same value. — SpaceDweller
I think starting such a site is a good idea — Hillary
That spark came from nothing and I accept that something can come from nothing WITHOUT INTENT.
If you can't accept that then in my opinion, the theistic delusion will continue to fog you. — universeness
Fine, I have nothing to add to your choice.
For me this is insufficient\incoherent conclusion — SpaceDweller
But it's only one way, I asked you why it's a better way than string theories 10 spatial dimensions and you have not answered me. — universeness
You cant have a cylinder or a radius or a circle in 1D space (lineland — universeness
am not suggesting an anthropomorphic 'first cause.' I am suggesting a mindless spark that is gone in the same way that the spark of a flame is gone. — universeness
In string theory, the 10d structure is a static one. The partiicles themselves are strings and branes moving through it, and that's where the trouble starts. Just imagine the 5d Kaluza -Klein case.. — Hillary
Imagine a cylinder. From afar it's 1d. A circel in it has inly one direction to move in. Same for an S1xS1xS1 structure in 3d : three directions to move in. Si the particle is a tiny geometrical structure. Which can be filled with charge.
A mindless first spark? — Hillary
am not suggesting an anthropomorphic 'first cause.' I am suggesting a mindless spark that is gone in the same way that the spark of a flame is gone.
— universeness
Which is equivalent to the gods believe. It's a believe. Do you have proof for this spark, magically appearing out of nowhere? — Hillary
Well, the 6d structure is static too and the 3d particles move through it, but it offers a naturally appearing Planck scale, Lorenz invariant (which is sought after in modern physics).
Two particles never can get closer than a Planck length. What's the distance between two circles on top of each other? — Hillary
No, a line is the distance is just a line in the distance. Lineland is used but it's an idealised picture. — universeness
What's this got to do with two circles on top of each other? I would say they merge into a single taller circle, no distance between them until you part them again. — universeness
So 'static' is not the aspect that makes the difference then! — universeness
I don't need proof to provide a posit which is easily the equal of the god posit and more rational. — universeness
Give me an example link that explains how you can get a 2d circle in a 1d model. — universeness
You're talking about something that is a complete unknown. — SpaceDweller
If you see a cylinder with Planck radius from far away, what does it look like? — Hillary
If two different particles, circles, are on top of each other, the distance ain't zero, because parts don't touch. The distance is in order of Planck. Because the extra dimension is perpendicular to the bulk, it's Lorenz invariant — Hillary
Like I said, consider the 1d circle. If on a cylinder, how many directions are there for the circle to move in? Only one! Just as on a line. Now do as is done in string theory (which posits even 26 extra dimensions!). For the 1d case (or 3d with one extra which is Kaluza-Klein theory), i.e., a 1d space with one small dimension. A cylinder. Now consider a point particle or small string on it. There is a fundamental difference — Hillary
As I typed then, as good as the god posit and more rational and more likely. — universeness
You are using inaccurate terminology. A circle has an inner 2d space. Its curvature or circumference can be parametised to 1d but a CIRCLE is on a 2d plane — universeness
From a physicist:
Particles are not like billiard balls; they don't have a well-defined "surface" that could "touch" another particle. Instead, they are described by waves, which are extended — universeness
This does not help. You can't see anything with a Planck radius, even with our most powerful microscopes and you cant have a circle in 1d. — universeness
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.