@Cyracuz,
The expansion of shrapnel doesn't even come close to universe expansion. That's not only bad analogy, but an ignorant one! Shrapnel expansion has limits.
@cicerone imposter,
The way I see it, the very purpose of creating such analogies is to understand by comparison to something already understood.
In order to string two facts together we need to invent a story about their relationship. Some way to describe it in a way that matters to a human being. The idea that the universe has to have a beginning is in itself a requirement derived from our human understanding in which stories must necessarily have a beginning. We assume it because everything we perceive in the present continually changes.
@Cyracuz,
The expansion of the universe is better described by saying, keep adding 1 to any growing number. * Like infinity.
Do you think that the big bang could have been just the commencement or the recommencement of the evolution of the material substantivity that we know ?
@Arcades,
Maybe. Or maybe the "material substantivity" only matters in the relationship human-reality.
@Arcades,
Arcades wrote:
The main premise of absolute physics is that materiality,though it is an undeniable effect,cannot be the base ponential of reality,given that we observe it ,and that it is of definition,meaning that there are differences in constituency,(objects and space,etc). If materiality is the base ponential then there is no physical context for its definition of states and operations except in contradiction of the material principle itself - causality,which is why. There cannot be cited a causal"commencement " to the universe that does not equate implausibility to some degree . What in materiality can show an objective presupposition of material state and function? What is the context for the visceralization of an active existence rather than an inactive existence , a perforce beingness rather than a perforce nonbeingness? What is the physical context for existence's intrinsic beingness factor? This intrinsicity is a singular definition in absolute physics ,that is supraliterated by a reality contextuality that is"more than material". Arcades Cinza
This is nothing but nonsense and babble, beautiful rethorics but that's all it is.
@HexHammer,
It's not even 'beautiful.' It's total bull shyt! ....and it stinks to high heaven! LOL
Think of how understanding finally that we as objects are absolutely passive in causality would advance us psychologically. People fear this absolute passivity too intensely. Thinking as if free will is possible is an immediate sign of undeveloped intelligence. The lack of so-called free will means a tremendous lot in the universe for us .believe me it does.
@Arcades,
Free will like everything else we perceive are subjective to the individual.
Free will is inconcongruous with a causal universe.and if we have no free will how can we claim to have any objective capacity or denotation to our beingness? If our thoughts and actions are not formed within our perceived sphere of control ,then the control must source elsewhere; and thus, continuing logically, we start to see here the totality as possessing the dictative, and the administrative control of what we term as purpose , and given this true, we can't claim that our experience is logical, but analogical- the denotative intent behind what we term as logic can be possessed only by the totality . Thus the immediate observatum-so-called reality emanated from a point of infinitely dense energy - is an analogic viewpoint , therefore finding corroborations of a big bang will continue to come , as the big bang is true and analogical, rather than true and subjective. At this time there can be anything more real to us than our analogic.
@Arcades,
Well stated. However, we are somewhat controlled by our language, culture, parents, siblings, peers, and the laws of the country in which we live, but primarily by how we perceive our own subjective beliefs.
Me using the term totality imputes vaguely to some people I believe. Even if the universe's so-called expansion is defining the supposed continuously increasing size of the universe there can never be proposed a relative density for the universe that we know the universe is an analogical totality in all rational configurations of it .
There is so much to say about this topic that it requires a separate continuation in a thread.
I have been referring to the universe as an analogical perspective of what reality really is,and it is; what I'm adding now is that there are an unimaginably large number of analogs - some ahead of us(this is the most unsettling for me for if we are cusped to exceed the immediate Complex of analogicality they have already) and some behind us. I am talking about relative analog that have slightly different causality representations from ours, that the more remotely relative they are from ours the more different their causality representation is from ours, some to point where based on our own representation we would be unable to perceive theirs generally as overall governing material principle. These analogs are not separate. They are dependent on all other analogs the same way the force of one object is exactly related to another in collision, but instead of objects it is entire analogs, not colliding, but in a higher type of interfacience to explained.the slight modifications of these relative causalities from one analog to the next,and the dependency, has actual reality being of no analogicalized principle, for the fact of dependency cancels out any claim of order or disorder that can be produced from any particular analog. Therefore we are left with a totality that accurately cannot have a premise for starting or ending or being in progress actually- logical reality. In 2010 I named it the Nonium.
@Frank Apisa,
Great response attitudes frank. The answer is yes. Not only that- I know how we could learn to manipulate it from where we are . Just to add, there are aliens here, only humans on this analog . As for babble - the time for defending against such claims is gone. With all due respect -no more traps please.
@Frank Apisa,
I wasn't being sarcastic when I said great attitude . To have people say get to the point is my queue. The answer is no, there is no creator god. The nature of reality cannot bear the description of being created ,nor subsequently being in progress- that begins and ends with notions of causality, and causality is merely attributable to the big bangs point of infinite energetic density and notions of a Euclidean universe . So unless we are ready to accept that this energetic point materialized itself , we have no platform to logically host a god the actively created something.
@Frank Apisa,
Because he or she , to create ,would have to have had precognition of what was to be created, and without any relative state , god either did it by mistake,or was merely a conduit for an even higher form, if we are to say that god had an original thought then we would have to accept that god was at one time thinking, which has clear connotations of uncertainty,for a god all things must be at all times certain. And can you think of anything that god could have working out prior to having his or her amazing epiphany
