Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
I see you didn't bother to read Davies article since he claims

Actually I did. Several times. I didn't say I agreed with all of it, did I?

parados wrote:
the Big Bang could be caused by the intersection of another multiverse with this one.

Could[/u][/i], eh? A lot of things could[/u][/i] be , I suppose. Do you have any evidence that this actually DID occur?

Hmmmmm. I thought not.

parados wrote:
Certainly an intersection would require that it be part of this universe where it intersects which means it would no longer be supernatural.

certainly?[/u][/i]

required?[/u][/i]

For someone with no evidence, your certainty[/u][/i] about what would be required[/u][/i] is rather amusing.

Rather funny parsing of words by someone that makes the specific claims you make.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
Of course the real problem with your argument real life is that string theory IS a theory about this universe.

Quote:
--function in accordance with the same natural (scientific) laws that the rest of the universe is subject to

Since black holes are subject to the laws of this universe that means that if this universe is subject to string theory which also says that other universes exist then other universes can NOT be supernatural.

Which of course then leads you to trumpet this argument

Quote:
--part of our natural universe, not outside of it

But the "universe" is an artificial construct created by humans. If string theory says other "universes" exist then they technically become natural and can not be supernatural. We have already expanded the meaning of "universe" to include things we can't see but theoretically can show to exist. By theoretically showing that multiverses exist we have only done the same thing that was done with black holes.

Let's suppose that these additional universes DO exist and that they are natural as you say, that is that they are subject to the same scientific laws that our universe is subject to.

Then you have the same problem with them that you do with our own universe. Namely, where did matter/energy come from?

Except that the "natural" law of string theory says they can have different rules inside each multiverse. Are you SURE you read Davies? You keep making arguments that are in direct contradiction to what he said.

Quote:

If matter cannot be created, then how is it here in our universe or even in another?

In your previous post you just pooh poohed the idea that the intersection of 2 universes could occur when you did your wonderful word parsing. Are you SURE you read Davies?

Quote:

If your answer is that matter/energy is 'eternal' (i.e. it NEVER had a beginning, but has always been) then besides explaining that, you have the additional problem with entropy. How come a state of maximum entropy (heat death) hasn't been reached if it has existed 'eternally' ( i.e. not just 'a very long, but finite, amount of time' ) ?

Are you SURE you read Davies?

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

When I used the term, 'supernatural', I clearly indicated it referred to some that existed outside of our universe and/or was not subject to natural (i.e. scientific ) law.

You are merely trying to utilize a term that has no means of supporting itself outside of magic, and has no predictive use , and you wish to use it to support a concept that has no basis in evidence(Creationism).Thats a bit much.

"If you accept the supernatural as coequal with science, then believing Creationism should be no problem" -Does that summarize your point?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If your answer is that matter/energy is 'eternal' (i.e. it NEVER had a beginning, but has always been) then besides explaining that, you have the additional problem with entropy. How come a state of maximum entropy (heat death) hasn't been reached if it has existed 'eternally' ( i.e. not just 'a very long, but finite, amount of time' ) ?

You have attempted to use this bankrupt argument before. Leaving aside the possibility of "multiverses" (since you obviously don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge the implications), the concept of "heat death" does not imply that either matter or energy cease to exist. It only describes a situation in which there is no longer sufficient energy to act upon matter. It doesn't mean that the matter ceases to exist, and it doesn't mean that there is no energy--and it ignores the implications of a closed universe. If the universe is closed, a juncture at which energy still exists, but there is no longer expansion of matter would lead to a collapse--a "big crunch," preceding another big bang. It is not just that you are ignorant of, or willfully ignore the arguments which Parados has presented with regard to the possibility of multiverses, you also continue to indulge a selective ignorance of the implications of entropy in a closed universe.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
Certainly an intersection would require that it be part of this universe where it intersects which means it would no longer be supernatural.

certainly?[/u][/i]

required?[/u][/i]

For someone with no evidence, your certainty[/u][/i] about what would be required[/u][/i] is rather amusing.

I still find this one confusing from you real life. Could you explain how something can intersect at the same time it does NOT intersect.

Quote:

in·ter·sect (ntr-skt)
v. in·ter·sect·ed, in·ter·sect·ing, in·ter·sects
v.tr.
1. To cut across or through:

Could you explain for all the dummies out there like me how something can cut across or through something but not touch any part of what it intersects and does not affect what it intersects in any way. The definition of the term seems to preclude such a thing from occurring.
When 2 roads "intersect" they touch each other.
When a 2 dimensional plane intersects a 3 dimensional object it has an obvious cut through. I would guess that cutting a 5 dimensional object with a 3 dimensional one would be similar. But since you wanted to parse some of my words could you parse "intersect" for us as well to show an example of A intersecting B and B not being affected in any way. I can see no way for this to happen.

Even if the observer is inside of B when A intersects it, if the observer is capable of observing in the dimensions that the intersection occurs that intersection would have to manifest itself observable in some fashion.

Please tell us how this intersection occurs since you are NOT certain it would cause any change in B.

0 Replies

Baddog Wrote

Quote:

Thank you for remembering so many details - the flattery is appreciated. If you have a question or questions about my credentials or thoughts on life - ask. :wink:

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Could you explain for all the dummies out there like me how something can cut across or through something but not touch any part of what it intersects and does not affect what it intersects in any way. The definition of the term seems to preclude such a thing from occurring.

The humor in your statement comes from your 'certainty' at what would be 'required' to occur as our universe encounters an unknown -- another universe.

First, can you describe for us the boundary of our universe?

Since this would be the point of intersection, it is vital that you have a firm idea (based on evidence) of where and how our universe is 'contained'.

Next then describe for us the boundary of the other universe(s) that you propose will 'intersect' our universe.

Give us a reasonably complete list of the properties of the other universes.

How do you know when they have 'intersected' and when they have not?

Is matter that is located in one universe required to collide with matter from the other before 'intersection' can be said to occur?

Since our universe is continuing to expand, would our universe still be in a state of intersection with another , if it had occurred in the past?

Or would they simply bounce off each other like rubber balls, only colliding but never intermixing appreciably (or at all)?

The answer to all these is you don't know.

The fact that you are talking thru your hat with such 'certainty' is funny, because I thought you had told me that you were all about evidence and proof.

0 Replies

I must say you are doing a swell job of showing how you don't agree with any of Davies' points real life.

Now that you have disagreed with so many of his points I think it is time that you try to tell us which one you agreed with.

http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/papers/MultiverseCosmologicalModels%2083.pdf

1. You don't agree that multiverses can intersect
2. You don't think string theory can be a "natural" law that controls all universes
3. You don't think "laws" can be restricted to specific time/space areas
4. You don't think this universe could be created by the Big Bang
5. You don't think that statistical variations can happen in the 2nd law of thermodynamics
6. You don't think different universes could have different local physics.
7. You don't think black holes can create universes (which means that matter can leave our uinverse essentially being destroyed in this universe.)
8. You don't even think multiverses can exist (which was the major point of Davies piece.)

Basically I can't find any points raised by Davies that you agree with. You have gone on and on and nothing you have said comes close to agreeing with any of his points.

So, real life.. enlighten us with the point by Davies that you agreed with.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The answer to all these is you don't know.

"What you 'know'" I don't know "and what you 'assume'" I don't know "are mostly products of your own bent thinking."

I see you prefer to "misrepresent my position."

Gosh real life don't you think it would be better "to examine the article and think it through."

I guess you would just rather "feign cluelessness on this."

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
Could you explain for all the dummies out there like me how something can cut across or through something but not touch any part of what it intersects and does not affect what it intersects in any way. The definition of the term seems to preclude such a thing from occurring.

The humor in your statement comes from your 'certainty' at what would be 'required' to occur as our universe encounters an unknown -- another universe.

First, can you describe for us the boundary of our universe?

Since this would be the point of intersection, it is vital that you have a firm idea (based on evidence) of where and how our universe is 'contained'.

Next then describe for us the boundary of the other universe(s) that you propose will 'intersect' our universe.

Give us a reasonably complete list of the properties of the other universes.

How do you know when they have 'intersected' and when they have not?

Is matter that is located in one universe required to collide with matter from the other before 'intersection' can be said to occur?

Since our universe is continuing to expand, would our universe still be in a state of intersection with another , if it had occurred in the past?

Or would they simply bounce off each other like rubber balls, only colliding but never intermixing appreciably (or at all)?

The answer to all these is you don't know.

The fact that you are talking thru your hat with such 'certainty' is funny, because I thought you had told me that you were all about evidence and proof.

"What you 'know'" I don't know "and what you 'assume'" I don't know "are mostly products of your own bent thinking."

I see you prefer to "misrepresent my position."

Gosh real life don't you think it would be better "to examine the article and think it through."

I guess you would just rather "feign cluelessness on this."

Then prove me wrong by telling us all about exactly how universes intersect (and how you know this to be so) and by answering the questions from post 3019052 (and also quoted above, in case you have difficulty locating the post).

0 Replies

I've got to admit Parados, you are a little slow on the uptake. WE have to answer RL's questions, he does not have to answer ours. That is the way the game is played. That dove-tails beautifully with the fact that he CAN'T answer ours, don't you think? Hope that helps Smile

0 Replies

"Then prove" all of us "wrong by telling" us which points made by Davies you agree with. Until you do so I guess we can all assume we are correct and you don't agree with any of his points.

I've linked to 4 posts asking you to tell us which points you agree with in case you have difficulty remembering.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2991240#2991240
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2991230#2991230
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3013219#3013219
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3013754#3013754

By the way if you had read Davies you would know that intersections with other multiverses do NOT have to occur at the expanding "boundary" of this universe. You would also know that matter could be created and/or destroyed based on the intersection. But then that's the difference between you and I, I am willing to point you in the direction of the answers to your questions. You on the other hand have not discussed one point you agree with Davies on. Instead you have discussed at least half a dozen points that you disagree with him on and keep adding to your disagreement list.

I think every point I said you disagreed with in this post
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3015734#3015734
you have now shown quite clearly that you do disagree with. In spite of your claim that it was only "my bent thinking" that created any disagreement.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I must say you are doing a swell job of showing how you don't agree with any of Davies' points real life.

Basically I can't find any points raised by Davies that you agree with. You have gone on and on and nothing you have said comes close to agreeing with any of his points.

So, real life.. enlighten us with the point by Davies that you agreed with.

You don't pay attention well, do you?

Aren't we talking about existence outside of our universe?

Now, whereas you are 'certain' what must be 'required' if such existence should come into contact with our own................

................I am a bit more skeptical, and so have asked for the evidence you used to nail down your conclusion. (You seem so sure.)

But I'll not hold my breath.

0 Replies

Just to reiterate:

Quote:

I've got to admit Parados, you are a little slow on the uptake. WE have to answer RL's questions, he does not have to answer ours. That is the way the game is played. That dove-tails beautifully with the fact that he CAN'T answer ours, don't you think? Hope that helps

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
I must say you are doing a swell job of showing how you don't agree with any of Davies' points real life.

Basically I can't find any points raised by Davies that you agree with. You have gone on and on and nothing you have said comes close to agreeing with any of his points.

So, real life.. enlighten us with the point by Davies that you agreed with.

You don't pay attention well, do you?

Aren't we talking about existence outside of our universe?

LOL.. that is the point you agree with Davies about?
Davies says there are universes outside of this one.
real life says there is a God outside this universe.

That does NOT mean you agree with a point Davies made real life. You have questioned if Davies point can really be true which means you disagree with his point. You can't agree with someone's point at the same time you disagree with the specifics of his point.

But then it was clear this is the way you would try to parse meanings to show you agreed. You have done it consistently. See my point about Shapiro just a few pages ago.

Quote:

Now, whereas you are 'certain' what must be 'required' if such existence should come into contact with our own................

................I am a bit more skeptical, and so have asked for the evidence you used to nail down your conclusion. (You seem so sure.)

But I'll not hold my breath.

I'm sure you won't hold your breath while you misrepresent what I said. :wink:

I am certain that an intersection REQUIRES that an intersection occur. One can't have an intersection where there is no intersection. You however are under some delusion that words only have the meaning you want to apply to them. But meanwhile you haven't bothered to read Davies have you? You might want to check out the Hawkins principle which causes matter to evaporate from the universe. But then you probably agree with that too.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Just to reiterate:

Quote:

I've got to admit Parados, you are a little slow on the uptake. WE have to answer RL's questions, he does not have to answer ours. That is the way the game is played. That dove-tails beautifully with the fact that he CAN'T answer ours, don't you think? Hope that helps

I have this vision. (I think it is from God) of real life stuck in purgatory for eternity while the door to heaven has a sign over it that reads,

"You can only enter after I give you a clear answer to your question."1

1 - galatians 6:7

0 Replies

Consider what choices he has left himself with. He is right about everything and the experts are wrong, period. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of science can see he is clueless. Yet he knows all the answers. He has to PROVE nothing, by definition he is right. What has he left but the kind of tactics he uses?

He believes the universe is only thousands of years old and that the big bang cannot have occurred but then becomes the authority of the physics that took place there?! He wants proof if you discuss a process that is outside of observation, tells you your proof is wrong because you can't possibly KNOW and then matter-of-fact tells you that black-holes are within our universe not outsidehis proofhe said so.

Except for the fact that he can actually get people to interact with him, a feat that I would guess is a little harder for him in the real world, what can you possibly get from that kind of interaction. I'm rightyour wrongI win. I guess it's what keeps his kind busyas I've said before most people's behavior is a mystery to me.

I have long tried to convince people that if you just ignore his type he will get bored and go away. The problem is not everyone gets on the same page with this at the same tine (and some just won't) so eventually he says something so inane that you have to reply. It's become less and less with me, it's just a useless effort.

But in my opinion you can see the results. There is really no discussion of science on the science forum. We have either he, BD, gunga, or of course Spendius trolling every post to derail it and eventually the discussion centers on their own brand of inanity. You can see how few new posters show up on that forum. I've answered a couple of questions for newbies to have spendi show up (for example) and the new people are gone.

I do have to say I really enjoy your posts, I get so caught up in the bastardization of the science that I love I can't be focused enough to just post his own words back at him like you do. Nothing can or could make him look any more ridiculous than his own words.

He is the epitome of that famous misstatement of the former VP Dan Quayle: "The mind is a terrible thingerits terrible to lose one's mindyes that's so true"

Think he had RL in mind! Laughing

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I am certain that an intersection REQUIRES that an intersection occur.

Yes, and I've simply asked that you define what you mean by this.

If two fleets of ships pass through each other on the Pacific without a collision, have they intersected?

Or does it require a collision for an intersection to occur?

Does matter/energy in one universe have to collide with matter/energy in another for your definition of 'intersection' to have been satisfied?

To answer this, you will have to know something about the boundaries of each proposed universe, and their properties.

I've asked how you know specifically about the boundary, the properties etc of an UNKNOWN universe. (Does it even have matter/energy?)

Your response is , well , you just know.

Quaint.

I thought you were all about evidence and proof and I was supposedly the one who did without?

You talk about 'multiverses' that are outside our universe and not subject to the laws of our universe.

When a question arises of the implications of such a view, you fudge that these alternate universes really could be subject to our laws after all.

The point is you really don't know, and are unwilling to look at the consequences of either possibility. You just jump back and forth between them.

So let's deal with what we know of our universe.

We have matter/energy.

It cannot be created by natural means.

Where did it come from?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

So let's deal with what we know of our universe.

On the basis of that criterion, you have no business in this discussion.

What evidence do you have for creationism, "real life?"

0 Replies

See Parados it is YOU that won't answer a question. Yet I'm on day 31 waiting for an answer to the questions at the bottom of this post:
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2975539#2975539

Unfortunetly those answers would tend to show him that the conservation law he is touting didn't start to take effect until about 1x10EXP-35 seconds AFTER the big bang. Nor are they absolute even at the quantum level today.

HOW DO I KNOW THIS???!!!!?? I was required to take quantum physics, that's how!!!!!

Funny how the experts that developed physics are only right when it is to RL's purposes.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know