0
   

Does the universe need to become uniform, so that perfection exists?

 
 
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2016 07:13 pm
Reality is difference; when you look at the universe, you see contrast. Is this inherent error?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 1,620 • Replies: 22
No top replies

 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2016 07:32 pm
@Thomas33,
One does not correct that which is true. Facts are perfect. (Including the fact of criticizing them)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2016 07:39 pm
@Thomas33,
it is not inherent error; it is human's ability to subjectively process how they react to their environment.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2016 06:37 am
@Thomas33,
Quote:
Reality is difference; when you look at the universe, you see contrast. Is this inherent error?


Why would there be an error in your syllogism? Reality is difference. Universe has contrast. Seems logical.

And perfection is so subjective. A uniform universe is a cold dead one - 3rd Law of thermodynamics
0 Replies
 
George
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2016 07:54 am
It's not an error. It's just a matter of tuning. Same thing with brightness.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2016 11:42 am
@Thomas33,
I'm impressed that you four fellas can make some sense out of the q

No offense, Tom, it's just that you're smarter than the Average Clod (me)
George
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2016 12:28 pm
@dalehileman,
I hope you aren't including me. I'm just a goofball.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:16 pm
@George,
No Geo not at all. If ever there was a goofball.....(me)...
George
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:20 pm
@dalehileman,
OK, then we'll be fellow goofballs.
Maybe we can order t-shirts.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:25 pm
@George,
On my agenda Geo
George
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:28 pm
@dalehileman,
Kewl
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:30 pm
@George,
Indoody

Incidentally Geo whaddya thinka this fella Tom
George
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:35 pm
@dalehileman,
Always look for his threads.
They're in a kind of Twilight Zone.
He certainly has a knack for amusing Topic Titles!
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:41 pm
@George,
Quote:
Always look for his threads.
Wouldn't miss a single one. However I can suppose he imagines I'm laughing at him. No, Tom, wouldn't

Quote:
They're in a kind of Twilight Zone.
Mine assuredly

Quote:
...amusing Topic Titles!
Hadn't occurred to my old head. I shall review 'em for that very reaction
George
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2016 01:48 pm
@dalehileman,
My personal favorite:

If the multiverse is true, is Queen Victoria a Hollywood Director in an alternate reality?
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2016 02:06 pm
@George,
Yea Geo I vaguely remember that'n, recall asking myself if it contained some sort of profundity
George
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2016 02:20 pm
@dalehileman,
Well, I guess the profundity was the theory of the multiverse: that there
are an infinite number of universes of which this is but one. The question
within the question was "Do you believe in the multiverse?"
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2016 12:19 pm
@George,
Geo that was a very profound observation on a profound observation. Probably repeating myself, but it casts doubt on their excistence
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2016 12:26 pm
@George,
That will remain a mystery until we are able to confirm "what's out there."
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2016 09:06 pm
@George,
Whether it is a Multiverse, or a sequence of Universes where exactly the same thing happens, that is, all those possibilities of arrangements that can exist both of atomic combinations and law variance in each big bang out of quantum foam in the frozen sea of particles in the far dead future and that end up happening in a close loop of finite information combinations with a rational limit, without infinite regress and infinite diversity of information...well is not important which is which...time being relative and irrelevant, one might indeed grant they all are an ensemble. Be it the Multiverse, be it the sequence of Universes in a specific spacial order that also happen to be a timeless ensemble in spite of the position ordering. The difference is so small that one might attribute the problem to bad conceptual imagery about phenomena as space and time.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Does the universe need to become uniform, so that perfection exists?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/22/2019 at 08:55:56