Science & Mathematics Infinity

[Wally Carter]

I'm going to jump with the "WHITE FLAG" as this point and ask you two chaps to agree to disagree on interpretations of Biocentrism.

Yep, this thread has officially run off the rails and I am bored with it.

 

[Pie eyed]

Back to infinity and all the other awesome topics related to universal physics then.

Lets do a Googol the tiny brother of infinity.

 

[Mean Muggin]

Just to clarify before we move on. From what I gleened from the above - Biocentrism is the word used for the theory that we project (imagine) the universe for us to exist - correct? Like when Malifice mentioned only he knows that he exists, the same cannot be assured of anyone else?

And as far as scientific theories go, does the observations of light and whether it is energy or matter depending on whether we loom at it or not, have any substantial proof?

This thread is starting to get too deep for me. I thought I loved this stuff, but a universe that only exists when I observe it is a little disturbing. Of course when I die it won't exist for ME, but to say it was never there before or after is pretty narcissistic.

 

[Wally Carter]

Just to clarify before we move on. From what I gleened from the above - Biocentrism is the word used for the theory that we project (imagine) the universe for us to exist - correct?

Yes.

And as far as scientific theories go, does the observations of light and whether it is energy or matter depending on whether we loom at it or not, have any substantial proof?

The double slit experiment (posted earlier in this thread) would suggest so.

This thread is starting to get too deep for me. I thought I loved this stuff, but a universe that only exists when I observe it is a little disturbing.

It's the truth, so you may as well try to understand it better.

Of course when I die it won't exist for ME

Are you really dead, or have you just disappeared from someone elses universe?

[youtube]OZj9Qps8H6M[/youtube]

but to say it was never there before or after is pretty narcissistic.

Why?

 

[Mean Muggin]

It's the truth, so you may as well try to understand it better.

The only thing I have found annoying about this thread is the statements that are followed by the word TRUTH!

How can you unequivocally say that something of that magnitude is the truth. Religions make use of the same truth, doesn't mean they're right.

Are you really dead, or have you just disappeared from someone elses universe?

Will have to watch it (Assuming its not a piss take).

Why?

To begin with, to say you exsist for my amusement (or vice versa) can be looked upon as mildy insulting.

Even though I only learned about Biocentrism today, I have thought for years about that theory. I remember I once mentioned it to my old man and he said he has thought the same thing, as countless people would have. That in itself casts doubt, unless its my own mind which is making that all up to stop me fro learning the truth.

Its circle work, and can never be verified. But it is very hard to give it any credibility as you would have had to make up the entire past, not to mention create future events. How on earth would you keep it fresh.....unless you consider that history repeats itself.

That's enough of a head**** for me today.

Replied above

 

[Pie eyed]

Just to clarify before we move on. From what I gleened from the above - Biocentrism is the word used for the theory that we project (imagine) the universe for us to exist - correct? Like when Malifice mentioned only he knows that he exists, the same cannot be assured of anyone else?

And as far as scientific theories go, does the observations of light and whether it is energy or matter depending on whether we loom at it or not, have any substantial proof?

This thread is starting to get too deep for me. I thought I loved this stuff, but a universe that only exists when I observe it is a little disturbing. Of course when I die it won't exist for ME, but to say it was never there before or after is pretty narcissistic.

Sorry if I tried to end the discussion before you would have liked. ME. I assumed by lack of input other than the other chaps that it had gone a bit stale.

 

[Mean Muggin]

Sorry if I tried to end the discussion before you would have liked. ME. I assumed by lack of input other than the other chaps that it had gone a bit stale.

Nothing to apologise for mate. I agree we don't want to rail road the thread, but I do pick up a fair bit of interesting stuff that I never knew out of the continuous Malifice v Wally Carter debate. Both smart blokes and it's easier to understand via debate. I'm actually glad you have entered as now we have an external point of view as opposed to the two resident experts.

 

[Wally Carter]

The only thing I have found annoying about this thread is the statements that are followed by the word TRUTH!

How can you unequivocally say that something of that magnitude is the truth. Religions make use of the same truth, doesn't mean they're right.

Okay, replace the word truth with constantly reproduced experimental results.

To begin with, to say you exsist for my amusement (or vice versa) can be looked upon as mildy insulting.

Not when we take our egos out of the equation.

Even though I only learned about Biocentrism today, I have thought for years about that theory. I remember I once mentioned it to my old man and he said he has thought the same thing, as countless people would have. That in itself casts doubt,

Not if everyone is projecting their very own universe.

unless its my own mind which is making that all up to stop me fro learning the truth.

Your ego is the thing that is sabotaging your mind.

Its circle work, and can never be verified. But it is very hard to give it any credibility as you would have had to make up the entire past, not to mention create future events. How on earth would you keep it fresh.....unless you consider that history repeats itself.

I don't understand what you are stating here.

 

[Mean Muggin]

Not if everyone is projecting their very own universe.


Your ego is the thing that is sabotaging your mind.

I would have thought that it would be more egotistical to think everyone else is created by your own imagination?

If everyone projects their own universe, how is it that we converse about things that happen within our own?

That's what I was trying to say with my last paragraph. If we are projecting our own universe, the past as we know it (before we were born) is more or less a work of fiction, and any future event that occurs (within our life span) is bound by what we can imagine for it. I don't know, just sounds a bit too much like the matrix to me.

 

[Pie eyed]

Right at the moment I'm projecting that Wally, my subconscious creation, is just on the verge of realizing his own pending "non-existence" (at least in my subconscious) and as a defence, to prevent his own annihilation, will mentally conjure another parallel universe which may or may not instantly bring mine to an end.
You universe may well go on watching this or it could become involved leading to a bit of a scuffle of univii.

Fact is you can be endlessly speculative once you start to simple dwell on mental musing of what could be, without so much as the slightest particle of empirical evidence.

You cannot eat philosophy and it is not necessary to understand the universe. Philosophy is the lazy man's physics, hoping to stumble on the answer without the hard slog and evidence.

 

[Wally Carter]

I would have thought that it would be more egotistical to think everyone else is created by your own imagination?

Not if you take ego completely out of the equation.

If everyone projects their own universe, how is it that we converse about things that happen within our own?

You project it.

That's what I was trying to say with my last paragraph. If we are projecting our own universe, the past as we know it (before we were born) is more or less a work of fiction,

The past "as you know it" is the past "as you know it".

and any future event that occurs (within our life span) is bound by what we can imagine for it.

Correct.

Buck Rogers was a completely fictional character born in a time when the notion of space travel and going to the moon was considered preposterous (1929), yet the generation that grew up enthralled by the mythical adventures of this space travelling hero actually set foot upon the moon 4 decades later.

Was the seed for the Apollo landings set in the minds of children 40 years earlier? Did the collective consciousness bring it in to effect?

It makes you wonder, doesn't it?

I don't know, just sounds a bit too much like the matrix to me.

I would logically deduce that "The Matrix" has borrowed from quantum principles and not the other way around.

 

[Pie eyed]

Back to Infinity.

The way I look at infinity or the concept of infinity is this.

The universe, this universe, our universe, had a beginning. We do not know the exact millisecond but we are close enough to make this assumption.

WE from here on is taken to mean those who accept that science is reasonably accurate way to assess our universe, so if you want to claim "God did it" then how about you try another thread.

We believe that this universe began 13.5-14 Billion years ago in the Big Bang. Therefore it has a beginning. Ergo it is not infinite in age or in time. Time having begun at the Big Bang.
This universe is expanding currently and has been since the instant of the Big Bang. We can prove this using several techniques.
The question of infinity only really arises with discussion of the properties of this Universe. Whether this universe's expansion will eventually slow, then stop, then contract back to a Big Crunch,where all time and matter will be packed back into a singularity from whence it came or whether it will continue expanding forever into eternity.
If the latter is the true nature of the universe it truly is infinite as you will never be able to reach it's limits, those limits eternally eternally increasing ahead of any hypothetical traveller.

The word infinity pops in and out of use in many theoretical discussions of string theory, bubble/foam theory and multiple universe theory but in real terms the above scenario is the only one which is necessary in comprehending the scale of this universe and even then only in one scenario.

If you look for one moment at the number a Googol. A piece of paper the size required to simply write this number could not be stuffed inside the know universe.
We have tools to deal mathematically with the "universally big".


Once we find evidence of something before the Big Bang, wormholes to other universes or dimensions, infinity will have a role in those explanations also.

 

[Wally Carter]

Fact is you can be endlessly speculative once you start to simple dwell on mental musing of what could be, without so much as the slightest particle of empirical evidence.

"Empirical evidence" is nothing more than language.

You cannot eat philosophy and it is not necessary to understand the universe.

I can if that philosophy manifests a hamburger.

Philosophy is the lazy man's physics, hoping to stumble on the answer without the hard slog and evidence.

I'll always take the path of least resistance, you can suit yourself.

 

[Mean Muggin]

Touche'.

Very persuasive arguments. Can't fault your responses.

What's the explanation to dreams within the notion of biocentrism? Have they theorised about that?...And before you answer we simply project dreams, what is the point of making one a reality and the other not - atleast in our heads.

Yes Pie-eyed, I agree with statement on philosophy to a point, but I prefer that it is for those of us that are not smart enough to do the research......

Hang on a minute, why didn't i project myself as being smarter???

 

[Pie eyed]

Touche'.

Very persuasive arguments. Can't fault your responses.

What's the explanation to dreams within the notion of biocentrism? Have they theorised about that?...And before you answer we simply project dreams, what is the point of making one a reality and the other not - atleast in our heads.

Yes Pie-eyed, I agree with statement on philosophy to a point, but I prefer that it is for those of us that are not smart enough to do the research......

Hang on a minute, why didn't i project myself as being smarter???

Don't let me be mistaken for claiming any, the physicists or the philosopher is the smarter. That was not my point nor my intention.

Philosophy is for the very most part internal and highly un-testable./
That is not to say it does not have any worth.

 

[Mean Muggin]

Just bought "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking during my lunch break. Only got a bit of the way into chapter one but I'm hooked.

Hopefully this will expand my understanding and allow me to contribute more to this thread. It's a start anyway.

 

[Wally Carter]

Touche'.

Very persuasive arguments. Can't fault your responses.

What's the explanation to dreams within the notion of biocentrism? Have they theorised about that?...And before you answer we simply project dreams, what is the point of making one a reality and the other not - atleast in our heads.

I assume that is directed at me?

As for dreams, how do you know that your dream state is not reality?

How is the awakened state any different to the dream state?

 

[Mean Muggin]

I assume that is directed at me?

As for dreams, how do you know that your dream state is not reality?

How is the awakened state any different to the dream state?

Usually in my awakened state I don't have three or four naked perfect ten models following me around my bedroom....and I never last longer than 10 minutes.

 

[Wally Carter]

Usually in my awakened state I don't have three or four naked perfect ten models following me around my bedroom....and I never last longer than 10 minutes.

Is your "three or four naked perfect ten models" induced boner any less real?

 

[Malifice]

Just to clarify before we move on. From what I gleened from the above - Biocentrism is the word used for the theory that we project (imagine) the universe for us to exist - correct?

More or less yes. Rather than life evolving independently inside the universe, the universe is more or less a byproduct of life.

The universe exists in a state of infinite superposition and probability (it is simultaneously everything and everywhere at once) until it is interacted with by a living 'observer'... whereupon all the other probabilities collapse and the universe is 'ironed out' to conform to a fixed (and comprehensable) state.

Like when Malifice mentioned only he knows that he exists, the same cannot be assured of anyone else?

Think of it this way:

Even if everything else around you is false/ a hologram/ a mirage/ the matrix/ an illusion/ a grand trick or some giant ****ing lie... YOU must exist to be being lied to.

Cogito ergo sum.

The only universal truth is that you exist. Everything else you accept (more or less) on faith.

From your own perspective of course.

And as far as scientific theories go, does the observations of light and whether it is energy or matter depending on whether we loom at it or not, have any substantial proof?

Go back and check the dual slit experiment. Its a trip out.

Not only does observation of light change it from matter to energy and back (simply by observing it), observation can do so retrospectively (i.e. time travel).

Its pretty freaky.

 

[Malifice]

Don't let me be mistaken for claiming any, the physicists or the philosopher is the smarter. That was not my point nor my intention.

Philosophy is for the very most part internal and highly un-testable./
That is not to say it does not have any worth.

You realise Science is simply another philosophy right?

Its key features are empiricism and falsifiability.

In other words, its not science if you cant:

a) Observe a phenomenon,
b) Posit a reason that phenomenon occurs, and
c) Be able to test your theory and be able to prove it wrong.

As an example the 'fields' of Psychology and Sociology are not science.

Psuedo sciences maybe, but not science.

And why cant philospophies not be empirically testable?

 

[Malifice]

Hang on a minute, why didn't i project myself as being smarter???

If only it where that easy.

 

[Pie eyed]

You realise Science is simply another philosophy right?

Its key features are empiricism and falsifiability.

In other words, its not science if you cant:

a) Observe a phenomenon,
b) Posit a reason that phenomenon occurs, and
c) Be able to test your theory and be able to prove it wrong.

As an example the 'fields' of Psychology and Sociology are not science.

Psuedo sciences maybe, but not science.

And why cant philospophies not be empirically testable?

If you want to get down to tin tacks everything thing which requires even the vaguest conscious thought is technically philosophy.
I am sure that you can differentiate between the facts that Philosophy and Physics as different disciplines.

If someone asks "what is a bus" I'm sure you would not go off on some wildly hypothetical explanation which involves your mind implanting it into a universe of your own construction.

The KISS principle is always the best even when discussing the most intricate of postulations.

 

[Frodo]

Hmm, Occam's Razor.

Used in science and philosophy.


Bet my bus is different from yours.

Try Descartes, Spinoza or Kant.

 

[Pie eyed]

Hmm, Occam's Razor.

Used in science and philosophy.


Bet my bus is different from yours.

Try Descartes, Spinoza or Kant.

Same horse.