The greatest irony...

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:

You claim to understand the farthest reaches of the universe and time itself, but you cannot even determine if you ARE.

yes, fancy that. And the first is a consequence of the second. I see deeply, young padawan. Shed your assumptions, and you may too.

You've got a pocketful of assumptions, yourself.

Cyracuz wrote:

Terms like "beginning" and "ending" are meaningless when it comes to the universe. Time is something we percieve within it. It is not something the universe goes by. It is an attribute of the universe.
And the universe does not end, nor does it begin. It just is.

That is, unless you have PROOF that any of this is true. (Save your pixels, you don't.)

The difference between you and me is that you don't think you are making assumptions. You think only others do.

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:

You claim to understand the farthest reaches of the universe and time itself, but you cannot even determine if you ARE.

yes, fancy that. And the first is a consequence of the second. I see deeply, young padawan. Shed your assumptions, and you may too.

You've got a pocketful of assumptions, yourself.

Cyracuz wrote:

Terms like "beginning" and "ending" are meaningless when it comes to the universe. Time is something we percieve within it. It is not something the universe goes by. It is an attribute of the universe.
And the universe does not end, nor does it begin. It just is.

That is, unless you have PROOF that any of this is true. (Save your pixels, you don't.)

The difference between you and me is that you don't think you are making assumptions. You think only others do.

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:

You claim to understand the farthest reaches of the universe and time itself, but you cannot even determine if you ARE.

yes, fancy that. And the first is a consequence of the second. I see deeply, young padawan. Shed your assumptions, and you may too.

You've got a pocketful of assumptions, yourself.

Cyracuz wrote:

Terms like "beginning" and "ending" are meaningless when it comes to the universe. Time is something we percieve within it. It is not something the universe goes by. It is an attribute of the universe.
And the universe does not end, nor does it begin. It just is.

That is, unless you have PROOF that any of this is true. (Save your pixels, you don't.)

The difference between you and me is that you don't think you are making assumptions. You think only others do.

real life wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:

You claim to understand the farthest reaches of the universe and time itself, but you cannot even determine if you ARE.

yes, fancy that. And the first is a consequence of the second. I see deeply, young padawan. Shed your assumptions, and you may too.

You've got a pocketful of assumptions, yourself.

Cyracuz wrote:

Terms like "beginning" and "ending" are meaningless when it comes to the universe. Time is something we percieve within it. It is not something the universe goes by. It is an attribute of the universe.
And the universe does not end, nor does it begin. It just is.

That is, unless you have PROOF that any of this is true. (Save your pixels, you don't.)

The difference between you and me is that you don't think you are making assumptions. You think only others do.

This guy's humorous. Cyr said the universe "just is". What he is saying is, existence exists. This is axiomatic. Would you be so silly to argue...what? That existence does NOT exist? Where's the proof for that, Einstein?

Real life

Your ability to comprehend (or lack thereof) is stunning. Just because I call you something out of a movie, my young padawan, doesn't mean that everything that I say comes from that movie.

That's the same as me assuming that everything you say, regarding everything, comes from the bible just because you've said "jesus" a few times.

Cryacuz, why do you bother?

Chai wrote:

Real life....are you not reading what I (now for the 3rd time) have quoted?

While the entropy in the universe is continuously increasing, the energy of the universe is constant.

It would've saved you the trouble if you had read my response after the first time you posted it.

I agreed with you.

http://able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3012991#3012991

SINCE entropy continuously increases, the universe will AT SOME POINT reach 'maximum entropy'. Nearly everyone agrees this is so . (If you don't then let's discuss this point.)

If the energy has existed 'eternally' , then any finite period of time in which maximum entropy must occur has already passed.

real life wrote:

Chai wrote:

Real life....are you not reading what I (now for the 3rd time) have quoted?

While the entropy in the universe is continuously increasing, the energy of the universe is constant.

It would've saved you the trouble if you had read my response after the first time you posted it.

I agreed with you.

http://able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3012991#3012991

SINCE entropy continuously increases, the universe will AT SOME POINT reach 'maximum entropy'. Nearly everyone agrees this is so . (If you don't then let's discuss this point.)

If the energy has existed 'eternally' , then any finite period of time in which maximum entropy must occur has already passed.

Perhaps if you cared to read the last 7 words of that quote?

While the entropy in the universe is continuously increasing, the energy of the universe is constant.

RL, that's an old conversation, but I DO know that my "i" does not exist. You would see that your "i" does not exist either if you took a REAL look, but, like most people, you won't.

[Entropy will continue to increase over time until maximum entropy is reached. Do you agree with this?

real life wrote:

Entropy will continue to increase over time until maximum entropy is reached. Do you agree with this?

No, I do not agree.

What would prevent the universe from reaching a state of maximum entropy if it had existed 'eternally' (i.e. not just a 'very long time') ?

I did not say anything would prevent the universe from......very long time)