Thread: Scientists predict time will stop completely

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

The problem with that whole last sentence is that it implicitly assumes that we are supposed to have a purpose.

we do, like all objects in the universe. At least an illusion of purpose.

That's such axiomatic hedging! - bollocks, in other words!

[quote=Butterfly;2133410]

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

The use of the term "God" is not very helpful, due to the baggage of the word, and the anthropomorphisation that comes with it.

but that's what God has always been, the unknown. It's also an alias for the whole Universe.[quote=Butterfly;2133410]
Says who?!

Originally Posted by Butterfly

I understand the word has baggage, but let's take it as it was meant originally.

...which is?

I get the feeling that you are trying to bluff your way out of a corner...

"God" is a progenitor persona, a fiction.

If you are talking about something else - i.e.: the unknown; reality; etc... then fine, but don't conflate different concepts for convenience: be precise, or don't bother.

Originally Posted by hazz

The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom, at absolute zero and free external radiation effects.

The meter is 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red emission line in the spectrum of the krypton-86 atom in a vacuum.

Which rather nicely deals with any contraction or expansion of the universe.

^
How, exactly?

Metric is for continental sexual deviants; surely better to avoid using seconds and metres for quantum stuff:

Planck time

[ source: Big Bang models back to Planck time ]

Planck length

[ source: The Planck Length ]

^When you think of time and space, you should really think of it as a cloud or the surface of the sea. From a distance things look starp and well diffined, but as you get closer and closer, it starts to get very fuzzy.

Imagine trying to measure the length of a cloud or the sea depth to a millimetre in the case of a cloud, the edges are ill defined and the sea surface is constantly moving.

This is the nature of the universe when you start looking at things so closely that planks constant becomes very significant. very weird stuff starts to happen.... and the weirdness of QM is just a taster.

Originally Posted by hazz

weirdness of QM

That is certainly one thing we can agree on. Quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle are weird.

They help us to do some fancy stufff though.

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

I get the feeling that you are trying to bluff your way out of a corner...

"God" is a progenitor persona, a fiction.

If you are talking about something else - i.e.: the unknown; reality; etc... then fine, but don't conflate different concepts for convenience: be precise, or don't bother.

hardly,

God was always defined as the "unknown" or "the cause before all cause and effects" by early philosophers. In that context, God has always been associated somehow with our observable environment, and later the unknown universe. God as a worshiping thing was simply a misunderstanding of what God really was by some ambitious characters.

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

That's such axiomatic hedging!

can't we assume that we all have a purpose ? we might not know it, or think we know it, but in reality, things must have a purpose to function together. Since the universe is "there", we can assume it's functioning, therefore the things that make the universe have a purpose.

Yeah, and it also overlaps with philosophical questions. When you get into nanotech materials science, and actually get to look at arrays of atoms, and you can see the space inbetween, you realise that you are not seeing it at all, you are just seeing and impression of it made by reflected electrons... and what you are looking at is force fields... the manifestation of energy... energy being entirely a function of distance, and thus a function of space - (transitive reasoning) you have to have space to have distance to have energy, and to have space, you have to have time, as an orthogonal type of distance - a distance between changes or events.

When you start looking at the interfaces between materials, you start to contemplate where the actual edge of one object ends and of another begins... you begin to see everything as a material made of energy in space... the air around an object being an object in itself, and then when you think about a ball moving through the air as a lump of energy in a one state moving through a lump of energy in another state, you begin to wonder whether the ball is actually moving - i.e. does it contain the same matter and energy at the end of its journey as it did at the beginning, or has only the energy moved, and the matter stayed in exactly the same place...

...it's then when ideas of multidimensional simultaneity begin to seem conceivable.
Think about how when an electrical current flows, nothing really moved, only the vibrations of the atoms propagate through... there are no electrons flowing or moving, only energy being transferred.

Infinity includes Infinitesimality, so the closer you look at the edge of an object, the more you start to see an eternity of fractals, and you realise that everything you look at is infinite in some sense, and you have to just draw a line, and set a frame of reference.

This does not correlate to any valid proposition of a deity existing, it's just an interesting thing to observe and contemplate. Some people have a problem coping with there not being a creator or a purpose. These words are useless when it comes to describing anything. Does *rust* have a creator or a purpose?! We are rust... Our universe is also just rust... All our thoughts and ideas, are just rust... nothing more nothing less.

I don't know it the uncertainty principle is especially weird - clinging onto fixed notions of the physical and theoretical universe seems a bit weird.
Nothing in QM or QED is weird - it is all perfectly normal, just as the atoms of your fat arse not passing through the atoms of a chair is perfectly normal, and a manifestation of the serene chaos of energy vectors writhing beneath our perception.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

hardly,

GRR!! If you are talking about something else - i.e.: the unknown; reality; etc... then fine, but don't conflate different concepts for convenience: be precise, or I do yer!
Hard enough?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

God was always defined as the "unknown" or "the cause before all cause and effects" by early philosophers.

Like who? Which "school(s) of thought"? (Go on... google for "The logos"...get a move on, I'm beginning to drift in and out of consciousness)

Originally Posted by Butterfly

In that context, God has always been associated somehow with our observable environment, and later the unknown universe.

What context?! It's not defined! "always" this, "always" that... you are spouting... back it up! be precise!

None of these claims you are making are substantiated (or substantiable, for that matter).
It's more credible to say something like:
"The concept of a creator persona has been associated by some cultures (or "some philosophers") with the observable environment, and later, with the larger universe";
or,
"The concept of the great unknown has been associated by some cultures (or "some philosophers") with the observable environment, and later, with the larger universe".
In other words, make your mind up about what you are talking about, stop hedging, and using weasel words.
Are you talking about Isness，theism, or something more vapid from a hippy bookshop？

What your argument kind of sounds like is this:
Premiss 1: "stuff..."
Premiss 2: "the man..."
Conclusion: "so, like, everything happens for a reason, man..."
o.O

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

That's such axiomatic hedging!

can't we assume that we all have a purpose ? we might not know it, or think we know it, but in reality, things must have a purpose to function together. Since the universe is "there", we can assume it's functioning, therefore the things that make the universe have a purpose.

"must"?! "therefore"?!
too many assumptions... not enough valid arguments... you really do need to be more precise and define your terms, because you slipping and sloshing around allowing yourself nice big bushy hedges to conflate things and use weasel words.

You can assume what you like for your premises (they can be debated separately), but at least make the effort to reach valid conclusions from them.

Your premises in that paragraph (implicit bits in parentheses):
[transitive argument]
Premiss 1. We all (i.e. "All things must") have a purpose =(All p are q)
Premiss 2. [All] Things that function together (must) have a purpose =(All r are q)
[nested deductive syllogism]
Inference 1. If the universe exists it must be functioning
Premiss 2. The universe [sic] is there (i.e.: "exists")
Conclusion 1. The universe is functioning
[/nested inductive syllogism]
Conclusion 2: Therefore, All things that [sic] make (i.e.: "function together in"?) the universe have a purpose (r->q) {...sort of, but not really... your argument's a bit of dog's dinner tbh, there's a whiff of circular reasoning in it}
[/transitive argument]

Your nested deductive syllogism is valid; your other transitive argument is invalid (irrespective of whether any of it has any truth value or not), because you are missing an inference to link the thing you call "a purpose" to either premiss or the conclusion. You didn't have a premiss about "all things functioning together", so you need to justify and explain that component; not have you done anything bby way of explaining what "a purpose" is, in terms of constructing a valid, sound, and cogent argument.

Try again, and keep it simple.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

can't we assume that we all have a purpose ? we might not know it, or think we know it, but in reality, things must have a purpose to function together. Since the universe is "there", we can assume it's functioning, therefore the things that make the universe have a purpose.

Is this just a long winded way of you saying "I bugger, therefore I am"?

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

I don't know it the uncertainty principle is especially weird - clinging onto fixed notions of the physical and theoretical universe seems a bit weird.
Nothing in QM or QED is weird - it is all perfectly normal, just as the atoms of your fat arse not passing through the atoms of a chair is perfectly normal, and a manifestation of the serene chaos of energy vectors writhing beneath our perception.

I would say that qm and qed are weird on the basis that quite a lot of what we learn from these theories whilst accurately portraying how the universe works, run counter intuitive to have we perceive the universe working.

take stuff for instance. the stuff around us, take the planet, its mostly full of nothing much at all. The nucleuses of the atoms that make up this planet would fit into a cube less than 4km square, so its easy to see how particles that don't interact with electrons or charges can simply pass though the planet more or less as if it were not there. everything we sense around us, si result of electrostatic forces between electrons interactive with each other, forces created by parcels which are imaged as volumes with a 99% chance of containing that electron. Which all comes down to why its so importance that surfaces are seriously clean when you paint or glue them.... a concept I have yet to see a thai painter or builder to grasp.

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

energy being entirely a function of distance

shouldn't it be a function of gravity instead ?

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

and to have space, you have to have time

no, you don't, says who ?

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

None of these claims you are making are substantiated (or substantiable, for that matter).

don't be ridiculous, these are simple concepts, I do not need to substantiate how 2+2=4

if you are doing the mistake, like many in your case do, to rely on hard evidence to support your logic, then maybe your logic is not so strong or fundamentally sound. You do not need to explain every single micro details in your logic path to make it sound more important or credible. Fine to impress the fools, but it could also be just noises to hide the flaw in your logic.

Discussing science and/or the concept of god with Butterfly.

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

Try again, and keep it simple.

indeed, except you are trying to bury the arguments and the logic going with it with a lot of silly details (for your trolling pleasure I assume), that makes anything except being simple

...but we are perceiving QM and QED as well...

I didn't know Thais could grasp concepts.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

energy being entirely a function of distance

shouldn't it be a function of gravity instead ?

No.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

and to have space, you have to have time

no, you don't, says who ?

Me.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

Try again, and keep it simple.

indeed, except you are trying to bury the arguments and the logic going with it with a lot of silly details (for your trolling pleasure I assume), that makes anything except being simple

No, I'm trying to be precise about the fact that you can't construct an argument that makes any sense at all.

I have taught logic; I've also been trolling since I was at primary school, and am yet to meet a troll whose even near the class of my farts.

The bottom line is, that if you don't even know what you mean, how on earth do you expect anyone else to?

^ ok dude, it's late, going to bed

It's all about purpose, Neo.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Since the universe is "there", we can assume it's functioning, therefore the things that make the universe have a purpose.

That's quite clever.
Could you explain the second Matrix movie to me?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

None of these claims you are making are substantiated (or substantiable, for that matter).

don't be ridiculous, these are simple concepts, I do not need to substantiate how 2+2=4

Of course you do. You can easily prove that 2+2=2, but that's got very little to do with whatever you think we're talking about.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

if you are doing the mistake, like many in your case do, to rely on hard evidence to support your logic

Where?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

, then maybe your logic is not so strong or fundamentally sound.

Anything's possible.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

You do not need to explain every single micro details in your logic path to make it sound more important or credible.

You do need to make a valid conclusion from your premises, otherwise, Yoda speak on half a bottle of tequila it is.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Fine to impress the fools, but it could also be just noises to hide the flaw in your logic.

Explain the flaw (and the noises), fool.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ ok dude, it's late, going to bed

There are those who look at space, time, and energy activity as a simple proportional equation: for space to emerge, it requires time, at the same time relative to it; but, if there is no space - how long does it last for?
If space = zero; does time = infinity or zero? Does a zero state = and infinite (potential) state?
If space emerges, where does the energy come from to instigate that change?
Does time actually exist? Or is all time infinite?
The Unreality of Time

The OP itself is not clear about whether they are talking about time in the absolute sense or time in the relative sense.

If time were to stop, then by implication, absolute time would exist within absolute time; however if it were merely our relative perception of it that stopped, then time would be independent and absolute: both of these are paradoxes.
Perhaps this idea of time stopping and everything becoming an eternal energyless black vacuum in freeze frame is no different to the original state of the universe as a point of no space and no time - we expect the process to make sense in terms we can experience - inflation followed by deflation, but as we see the chaos of the quantim world, we can see that things can be more than one thing at the same time and at the same space. The laws of physics are only true for a given range of our perception and capacity to experience.

None of our perception is real - our vision is the reflection of photons from other atoms at different speeds (frequencies); our hearing, the compression and rarefaction of atoms in a gas; our sense touch the collision of atoms in a gas triggering voltage gated ion channels; our taste and smell the chemical (ionic) reaction between atoms in liquids. Even our thought processes have a speed limit of 200ms.

"All that we see or seem, is but a dream withn a dream"
Edgar Allan Poe

It's a load of bollocks, in other words, but a great way to attract funding...

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

for space to emerge, it requires time

no it doesn't,

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

You can easily prove that 2+2=2,

actually we can't, we have to take certain assumptions (axioms) to make that operation

you think that trying to explain how 2 came to be, and how the + sign came to be and how the = sign came to be is being substantial for your conclusion ? it's just fucking noises to distract us from the conclusion that 2+2=4

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

for space to emerge, it requires time

no it doesn't,

Are you sure? Which notion of time are you talking about? Or are you just waiting for enough of a response to construct a logically invalid argument that mixes terms from different premisses in a weasal words kind of way as you have been doing?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

You can easily prove that 2+2=2,

actually we can't, we have to take certain assumptions (axioms) to make that operation

you think that trying to explain how 2 came to be, and how the + sign came to be and how the = sign came to be is being substantial for your conclusion ? it's just fucking noises to distract us from the conclusion that 2+2=4

I do wish you'd stop hopping about from one level to another.

Strictly speaking, "2+2=4" is only true as long as you state the assumption that the value of "2" and the value of "4" are constant (they could be variable...).
In terms of proof, in the mathematical sense, you can generate an invalid proof that 2 does not equal 2, and then use that to make 2+2= something other than 4.
In terms of proof, in the semiotic and epistemological senses, yes, you have to prove that your symbols have any meaning; or even that calculation itself does.
Conflating these different perspectives to try and win a point is bogus, and "fucking noises". An axiom isn't really the same thing as an assumption, either.

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

In terms of proof, in the mathematical sense, you can generate an invalid proof that 2 does not equal 2,

it's called a mathematical trick, you can fool the audience by making a small mathematical mistake that everyone overlook while they concentrate on 2+2=5

demonstrated many times in maths class for our viewing pleasure,

of course fools like you would think that "mathematical terms" can create an illogical proof, while logic didn't even coming into the equation in the first place

keep up the good work

Originally Posted by Butterfly

fools like you

"ooh, you bitch, I'll scratch yer eyes out"

So now you've demonstrated that you understand logic, you can go and re-read your earlier drivel, and correct it, can't you? Sugerbreeches.

^ wrong, again, the logic I am using is not flawed and not based on the tricks you refer to

I bet you think that Descartes and all those classic philosophers are also playing logic tricks on you

time to up your meds