Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: We might all be NPCs in the game of life.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    We might all be NPCs in the game of life.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/038985_un...nt_design.html

    Here's what it means in layman's terms
    Here's the super easy way to understand all this. Your computer display screen has a finite number of pixels available, and this is called the "screen resolution" such as 1920 x 1440. This means there are 1920 pixels across and 1440 pixels vertically.

    Everything you see on your computer screen must be drawn and depicted using these pixels, and nothing can be displayed that's only half a pixel. For example, you can't draw a vertical line on the screen that exists between the pixels that are hard-wired into the screen resolution. Everything you view on the monitor -- a computer game, a website, even a video -- is essentially transposed onto the "lattice" of pixels that exist in your hardware.

    Your hardware, in effect, has a hard-wired "resolution limit" which defines the smallest size of any object that can be depicted on the screen.

    Now, zoom out to the "real" world in which we live. Here in the real world, we think that there are no pixels and that we can move fluidly to any location we wish. We are not digitized being, we think; we're analog beings living in a fluid world without the pixelation of a computer screen, right?

    Not so fast. As it turns out, our "reality" is also pixelated, just at a very fine resolution. This study out of Bonn revealed that the energy level of cosmic rays "snaps to" the "resolution" of the universe in which we live. The very laws of electromagnetic radiation, in other words, are confined by the resolution of the three-dimensional simulation we call a "universe."

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038985_un...#ixzz2KTZs8UpI

    Or maybe we are all autonomous programs that be be self altering......
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    We might all be NPCs in the game of life.

    I'm not going waste the electrons to view any link about intelligent design. It's not a revelation that we cannot resolve things smaller than the wavelength of the energy being "seen". Cosmic radiation isn't anything particularly special, it's one sort of electromagnetic radiation. Technically, the size of a pixel of life would be roughly that of an atom. Smaller than that, and while it can be resolved, it would be meaningless in terms the "color being displayed", just like a video pixel. Obviously, there are discrete elements smaller than atoms, but the nature of matter is roughly described by its atoms, not the components thereof.

    As with anything, if you don't understand it, the choice is to admit ignorance or call it magic.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The use of a display to explain the concept of granularity does not mean that granularity exists only in the visible, limited only to the granularity of a particular kind of observable electromagnetic energy.

    We tend to think of the universe as continuous because we are looking at it from such a macro level. More and more evidence is indicating that all of existence is actually discrete.

    The mathematics used in the two realms, continuous and discrete, are quite different. However, discrete systems, when the granularity is so tiny compared to the size of the system, tend to behave as continuous systems, leading guys like Newton and Einstein to their conclusions (and to Einstein's dismissiveness towards quantum mechanics), creating the laws of physics that we can apply so well on the macro level. Those laws collapse when looking at the micro level because of that evident highly granular discreteness when the universe is viewed so closely.

    So I wouldn't dismiss the display analogy so off-handedly with an (ironic) holier-than-thou claim to special knowledge. The display analogy explains very well to laymen why the universe appears to be as smooth as this O, while neither is smooth at all.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    We might all be NPCs in the game of life.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    So I wouldn't dismiss the display analogy so off-handedly with an (ironic) holier-than-thou claim to special knowledge. The display analogy explains very well to laymen why the universe appears to be as smooth as this O, while neither is smooth at all.
    As an analogy, it works. Allegory is good to explain to people not interested in details and those not capable of understanding.

    And I don't recall claiming special knowledge. I did point out that it's ok to admit that you don't know something instead of claiming it is magic. There is always an explanation, even if we cannot yet understand or resolve the underlying physics, chemistry, or math.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Not sure how anything in that article could be used to prove an "intelligent designer". I guess the ID group will grasp at anything to try and come up with any evidence that supports their claims. Considering the fact that our universe is expanding, if our universe had a set resolution wouldn't that mean that over time the individual pixels would be getting larger to make up for the increased size? Or are more pixels being added to keep up with the larger resolution? Could we in fact live in the minecraft universe one day where everything is blocky and pixelated?...

  6. #6
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    Not sure how anything in that article could be used to prove an "intelligent designer". I guess the ID group will grasp at anything to try and come up with any evidence that supports their claims. Considering the fact that our universe is expanding, if our universe had a set resolution wouldn't that mean that over time the individual pixels would be getting larger to make up for the increased size? Or are more pixels being added to keep up with the larger resolution? Could we in fact live in the minecraft universe one day where everything is blocky and pixelated?...
    There is nothing, until an observation creates it. The reason the universe is 'expanding' is because our observational instruments keep becoming more powerful.
    Unless you're referring to the "red shift" which has more than one explanation.

    As for being pixelated, keep in mind that the ratio of empty space inside an atom, is about the same as that of our solar system. Since atoms are round there will always be empty spaces between atoms. The electron in an Hydrogen atom is at an equivalent distance from the center as Pluto is from our sun.

    Even if the atoms overlap the electrons, as far we can obverse, cannot. Even if you were to pack all the electrons together, their round/spherical shape prevents them from ever filling up all the space. Think of Electrons, Protons, and Neutrons as being like the RBG pixels. You can only see what a pixel shows you.

    The simple observation of an object changes the object.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    There is nothing, until an observation creates it. The reason the universe is 'expanding' is because our observational instruments keep becoming more powerful.
    Unless you're referring to the "red shift" which has more than one explanation.

    As for being pixelated, keep in mind that the ratio of empty space inside an atom, is about the same as that of our solar system. Since atoms are round there will always be empty spaces between atoms. The electron in an Hydrogen atom is at an equivalent distance from the center as Pluto is from our sun.

    Even if the atoms overlap the electrons, as far we can obverse, cannot. Even if you were to pack all the electrons together, their round/spherical shape prevents them from ever filling up all the space. Think of Electrons, Protons, and Neutrons as being like the RBG pixels. You can only see what a pixel shows you.

    The simple observation of an object changes the object.
    I'm kinda lost trying to figure out exactly what your referring to, or the point you are trying to make. Sorry . I am talking about "red shift", it's widely accepted that the universe is expanding, we just don't know exactly what's going to happen. Whether the universe will eventually tear itself apart, or possibly stop expanding and eventually collapse back into itself possibly causing another big bang in which it would repeat itself. I was just referring to the notion that the universe is made of pixels or whatever they are trying to say. If you take a TV for example lets say an older standard definition tv, the larger the tv the more pixelated the picture becomes, would the same hold true that the universe could reach such a size where the individual "pixels" of space could become visible. Merely a hypothetical question considering that there isn't any evidence to support any of it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    I'm kinda lost trying to figure out exactly what your referring to, or the point you are trying to make. Sorry . I am talking about "red shift", it's widely accepted that the universe is expanding, we just don't know exactly what's going to happen. Whether the universe will eventually tear itself apart, or possibly stop expanding and eventually collapse back into itself possibly causing another big bang in which it would repeat itself. I was just referring to the notion that the universe is made of pixels or whatever they are trying to say. If you take a TV for example lets say an older standard definition tv, the larger the tv the more pixelated the picture becomes, would the same hold true that the universe could reach such a size where the individual "pixels" of space could become visible. Merely a hypothetical question considering that there isn't any evidence to support any of it.
    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/c...EW&classic=YES

    There is another explanation to the Red-Shift
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  9. #9
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    http://www.naturalnews.com/038985_un...nt_design.html

    Here's what it means in layman's terms
    Here's the super easy way to understand all this. Your computer display screen has a finite number of pixels available, and this is called the "screen resolution" such as 1920 x 1440. This means there are 1920 pixels across and 1440 pixels vertically.

    Everything you see on your computer screen must be drawn and depicted using these pixels, and nothing can be displayed that's only half a pixel. For example, you can't draw a vertical line on the screen that exists between the pixels that are hard-wired into the screen resolution. Everything you view on the monitor -- a computer game, a website, even a video -- is essentially transposed onto the "lattice" of pixels that exist in your hardware.

    Your hardware, in effect, has a hard-wired "resolution limit" which defines the smallest size of any object that can be depicted on the screen.

    Now, zoom out to the "real" world in which we live. Here in the real world, we think that there are no pixels and that we can move fluidly to any location we wish. We are not digitized being, we think; we're analog beings living in a fluid world without the pixelation of a computer screen, right?

    Not so fast. As it turns out, our "reality" is also pixelated, just at a very fine resolution. This study out of Bonn revealed that the energy level of cosmic rays "snaps to" the "resolution" of the universe in which we live. The very laws of electromagnetic radiation, in other words, are confined by the resolution of the three-dimensional simulation we call a "universe."

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038985_un...#ixzz2KTZs8UpI

    Or maybe we are all autonomous programs that be be self altering......
    I haven't read the article or any other comments but it sounds like you're talking about the holographic principle and planck scale.

    Nothing new here.

    ETA. I skimmed throught the article while trying to hold back my vomit.

    There is nothing new here as I mentioned except someone is trying to use the above theories to claim proof of a divine being. Such utter BS. That is nothing more than a loop. If He created this "simulation" what created Him.
    Last edited by sharkey; 02-14-2013 at 05:25 AM.
    "Public opinion and votes have nothing to do with this. The challenge of the Court is not what they're going to do with votes. The challenge-- of the Court is are they going to protect people's rights." - Al Sharpton


  10. #10
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    I'm kinda lost trying to figure out exactly what your referring to, or the point you are trying to make. Sorry . I am talking about "red shift", it's widely accepted that the universe is expanding, we just don't know exactly what's going to happen. Whether the universe will eventually tear itself apart, or possibly stop expanding and eventually collapse back into itself possibly causing another big bang in which it would repeat itself. I was just referring to the notion that the universe is made of pixels or whatever they are trying to say. If you take a TV for example lets say an older standard definition tv, the larger the tv the more pixelated the picture becomes, would the same hold true that the universe could reach such a size where the individual "pixels" of space could become visible. Merely a hypothetical question considering that there isn't any evidence to support any of it.
    The universe is most likely not expanding and there was probably no big bang.

    Let's assume the universe is expanding (into what?), why would the resolution change? Adding an addition to my house doesn't make me smaller.

    I was watching some Stephen Hawking show the other day and laughed as they talked about the big bang and the expansion rates of the universe. Everything they spoke of is in violation of every known law.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44690771/n.../#.URy-vX6RBgI

    http://www.technologyreview.com/view...-the-universe/

    My suggestion to people who really care about the origin of the universe is to focus on gravity. Until you understand that you won't understand anything.

    ETA, hell, while we're throwing out self contrived creations I'll tell you what this universe is.

    It's one giant fractal going on forever and ever. There is no planck scale. I'm a universe. Go down far enough and I have planets and solar systems in me, they in them, and so forth. Welcome to Whoville.



    Last edited by sharkey; 02-14-2013 at 06:19 AM.
    "Public opinion and votes have nothing to do with this. The challenge of the Court is not what they're going to do with votes. The challenge-- of the Court is are they going to protect people's rights." - Al Sharpton


  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    HS physics teachers have failed almost all of their students, trapping them in these Newtonian boxes, that restrict their vision of the possible, even when they try to think outside that box.

    Folks cannot see how the universe is possibly expanding, thinking that there must be, ironically, more space in our universe than we are currently occupying. That is NOT necessary for the universe to be expanding. Our universe has three perceptible dimensions. It can easily be expanding inside a four-dimensional object. In such a case, there would be no perceptible center from which we were expanding, and there would need be no available space into which we are expanding.

    To visualize this, we can look to two-dimensional expansion in a three-dimensional system. Specifically, blow up a balloon partially. Place some dots on it randomly. Then, add air to the balloon.

    The surface of the balloon is a two-dimensional system. If we imagine creatures in that system, who can only perceive the two dimensions of the surface, during the expansion of the balloon, they may have been able to detect that all the objects were getting farther apart and larger, but they would not have been able to perceive the central point from which the expansion was occurring (it existed in the three-dimensional space, but nowhere in their two dimensional space). Nor would they have been able to perceive that into which their two-dimensional space was expanding because it was changing its place (and increasing the space used) in the three-dimensional space.

    If our universe is a three-dimensional "surface," expanding around a chunk of four- (or more-) dimensional space (and into more of it), then we could perceive the expansion, but not see the center of the expansion--or answer the question, "Into what are we expanding?" Furthermore, the expansion would seem to be happening uniformly. Were we expanding from a central point, we would see more expansion looking orthogonally to the expansion than we would looking into it. Of course, since there is no perceptible point of emanation, there is no "looking into it." We can only look around and see uniform expansion everywhere, much like our hypothetical balloon creatures can--because we can only look orthogonally to the expansion!.

    In a nutshell, stop allowing yourselves to be trapped by Newtonian (or even Einsteinian) ideas of time and space when trying to understand ideas outside of those boxes.
    Last edited by eye95; 02-14-2013 at 10:08 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Folks in the Alpha Quadrant are not so constrained by biased perceptions of reality.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Everything you see on your computer screen must be drawn and depicted using these pixels, and nothing can be displayed that's only half a pixel. For example, you can't draw a vertical line on the screen that exists between the pixels that are hard-wired into the screen resolution. Everything you view on the monitor -- a computer game, a website, even a video -- is essentially transposed onto the "lattice" of pixels that exist in your hardware.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpixel_rendering
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_monitor
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  14. #14
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    HS physics teachers have failed almost all of their students, trapping them in these Newtonian boxes, that restrict their vision of the possible, even when they try to think outside that box.

    Folks cannot see how the universe is possibly expanding, thinking that there must be, ironically, more space in our universe than we are currently occupying. That is NOT necessary for the universe to be expanding. Our universe has three perceptible dimensions. It can easily be expanding inside a four-dimensional object. In such a case, there would be no perceptible center from which we were expanding, and there would need be no available space into which we are expanding.

    To visualize this, we can look to two-dimensional expansion in a three-dimensional system. Specifically, blow up a balloon partially. Place some dots on it randomly. Then, add air to the balloon.

    The surface of the balloon is a two-dimensional system. If we imagine creatures in that system, who can only perceive the two dimensions of the surface, during the expansion of the balloon, they may have been able to detect that all the objects were getting farther apart and larger, but they would not have been able to perceive the central point from which the expansion was occurring (it existed in the three-dimensional space, but nowhere in their two dimensional space). Nor would they have been able to perceive that into which their two-dimensional space was expanding because it was changing its place (and increasing the space used) in the three-dimensional space.

    If our universe is a three-dimensional "surface," expanding around a chunk of four- (or more-) dimensional space (and into more of it), then we could perceive the expansion, but not see the center of the expansion--or answer the question, "Into what are we expanding?" Furthermore, the expansion would seem to be happening uniformly. Were we expanding from a central point, we would see more expansion looking orthogonally to the expansion than we would looking into it. Of course, since there is no perceptible point of emanation, there is no "looking into it." We can only look around and see uniform expansion everywhere, much like our hypothetical balloon creatures can--because we can only look orthogonally to the expansion!.

    In a nutshell, stop allowing yourselves to be trapped by Newtonian (or even Einsteinian) ideas of time and space when trying to understand ideas outside of those boxes.
    Something that is infinite can not become more infinite. If the universe is not infinite what lies outside it? If it is infinite go back to first statement.

    Anyways, use the blob of dough with raisins analogy, it's represents what you were saying better than the balloon one.

    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=651

    In my fractal universe you can picture an atom (a planet with moons) deep within me. It's inhabitants can not see outside of me so I am the universe as far as they are concerned.
    Last edited by sharkey; 02-14-2013 at 09:29 PM. Reason: expand thoughts
    "Public opinion and votes have nothing to do with this. The challenge of the Court is not what they're going to do with votes. The challenge-- of the Court is are they going to protect people's rights." - Al Sharpton


  15. #15
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    The universe might not have an end. It might just loop back on it's self.

    It might have another universe neighboring it.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran ATM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    365
    My concept of infinity laughs at any attempts to quantify or define it by finite means.

    It is an unfathomable truth greater than the sum of all our combined egos.

    Physics, chemistry, even math bow and pay homage to that which fully encompasses yet is not restrained by their limited scope.

    Puny humans.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    The universe might not have an end. It might just loop back on it's self.

    It might have another universe neighboring it.
    Yes, when I was young I said the universe was round.

    Having said that, I think I'm done with this discussion. It's beyond our reach to grasp and therefore pointless.
    "Public opinion and votes have nothing to do with this. The challenge of the Court is not what they're going to do with votes. The challenge-- of the Court is are they going to protect people's rights." - Al Sharpton


  18. #18
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    HS physics teachers have failed almost all of their students, trapping them in these Newtonian boxes, that restrict their vision of the possible, even when they try to think outside that box.

    Folks cannot see how the universe is possibly expanding, thinking that there must be, ironically, more space in our universe than we are currently occupying. That is NOT necessary for the universe to be expanding. Our universe has three perceptible dimensions. It can easily be expanding inside a four-dimensional object. In such a case, there would be no perceptible center from which we were expanding, and there would need be no available space into which we are expanding.

    To visualize this, we can look to two-dimensional expansion in a three-dimensional system. Specifically, blow up a balloon partially. Place some dots on it randomly. Then, add air to the balloon.

    The surface of the balloon is a two-dimensional system. If we imagine creatures in that system, who can only perceive the two dimensions of the surface, during the expansion of the balloon, they may have been able to detect that all the objects were getting farther apart and larger, but they would not have been able to perceive the central point from which the expansion was occurring (it existed in the three-dimensional space, but nowhere in their two dimensional space). Nor would they have been able to perceive that into which their two-dimensional space was expanding because it was changing its place (and increasing the space used) in the three-dimensional space.

    If our universe is a three-dimensional "surface," expanding around a chunk of four- (or more-) dimensional space (and into more of it), then we could perceive the expansion, but not see the center of the expansion--or answer the question, "Into what are we expanding?" Furthermore, the expansion would seem to be happening uniformly. Were we expanding from a central point, we would see more expansion looking orthogonally to the expansion than we would looking into it. Of course, since there is no perceptible point of emanation, there is no "looking into it." We can only look around and see uniform expansion everywhere, much like our hypothetical balloon creatures can--because we can only look orthogonally to the expansion!.

    In a nutshell, stop allowing yourselves to be trapped by Newtonian (or even Einsteinian) ideas of time and space when trying to understand ideas outside of those boxes.

    If the universe is infinite (by definition, it is), then it just means that the leading edge of what we are perceiving is getting closer to infinite, but (also by definition) we will also never perceive the boundaries of the universe, because (by definition) they do not exist.

    Also, if the currently perceivable edge of reality is over 15 billion light years away, we have no method of realistically knowing if that boundary (created by an alleged "big bang") has changed its movements/momentum dramatically (+ or -) since. Simply put, we are dealing with mathematics and theories that do not work in an infinite system.

    We cannot even test light speed outside our own gravity well to know if the current theories even hold water...much less even fully define gravity in or out of our gravity well.
    Last edited by carolina guy; 02-14-2013 at 11:26 PM.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    The universe might not have an end. It might just loop back on it's self.

    It might have another universe neighboring it.
    guess it depends on your definition of "is" ...
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    If the universe is infinite (by definition, it is), then it just means that the leading edge of what we are perceiving is getting closer to infinite, but (also by definition) we will also never perceive the boundaries of the universe, because (by definition) they do not exist.

    Also, if the currently perceivable edge of reality is over 15 billion light years away, we have no method of realistically knowing if that boundary (created by an alleged "big bang") has changed its movements/momentum dramatically (+ or -) since. Simply put, we are dealing with mathematics and theories that do not work in an infinite system.

    We cannot even test light speed outside our own gravity well to know if the current theories even hold water...much less even fully define gravity in or out of our gravity well.
    Science has it's limitations, but it's still fun as hell to find out what they are... right?

  21. #21
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Science has it's limitations, but it's still fun as hell to find out what they are... right?
    Absolutely. It is also fun to find out that things that were previously thought impossible are in fact, possible. :-)
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    We might all be NPCs in the game of life.

    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    If the universe is infinite (by definition, it is), then it just means that the leading edge of what we are perceiving is getting closer to infinite, but (also by definition) we will also never perceive the boundaries of the universe, because (by definition) they do not exist.

    Also, if the currently perceivable edge of reality is over 15 billion light years away, we have no method of realistically knowing if that boundary (created by an alleged "big bang") has changed its movements/momentum dramatically (+ or -) since. Simply put, we are dealing with mathematics and theories that do not work in an infinite system.

    We cannot even test light speed outside our own gravity well to know if the current theories even hold water...much less even fully define gravity in or out of our gravity well.
    Something can be finite in size, but I infinite in scope. Think about that balloon again. Creatures on it can travel infinitely, but that surface is quite finite. Such is likely the case with our universe if the theory that it is a surface on a higher dimensional object is correct.

    BTW, there are mathematically magnitudes of infinity. Not that such applies in the case at hand.

    The best example of this would be some sets of numbers. Consider the set of Integers. It can be broken down into two sets of numbers: Even Integers and Odd Integers. Each set contains half the elements of the superset, yet all three sets are infinite in size!

    Even larger is the set of Real Numbers, of which all three are subsets. Furthermore, the three subsets are countably infinite. The set of Real Numbers is uncountable, introducing another order of magnitude.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  23. #23
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Something can be finite in size, but I infinite in scope. Think about that balloon again. Creatures on it can travel infinitely, but that surface is quite finite. Such is likely the case with our universe if the theory that it is a surface on a higher dimensional object is correct.

    BTW, there are mathematically magnitudes of infinity. Not that such applies in the case at hand.

    The best example of this would be some sets of numbers. Consider the set of Integers. It can be broken down into two sets of numbers: Even Integers and Odd Integers. Each set contains half the elements of the superset, yet all three sets are infinite in size!

    Even larger is the set of Real Numbers, of which all three are subsets. Furthermore, the three subsets are countably infinite. The set of Real Numbers is uncountable, introducing another order of magnitude.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Well...consider these set sizes:

    Positive Integers = infinite
    Negative Integers = infinite
    All Integers = infinite
    Real Numbers = infinite

    Or

    Number of Positive Integers = Number of Negative Integers = Number of All Integers = Number of Real Numbers

    Logically, this makes sense and doesn't make sense for the simple reason that our perceptions, and therefore our theories and mathematical systems cannot handle the concept of infinity.

    I believe that whether the set is countable or uncountable is functionally irrelevant when the size reaches infinite because the end state cannot be determined. This is where the theories fail when meeting reality.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    We might all be NPCs in the game of life.

    Actually, there is one flaw in your post. The number of Integers is not equal to the number of Real Numbers. All the sets of Integers you mention can be put into one-to-one correspondences with each other that would cover every number in both sets in any correspondence. Such could not be said for any set of Integers and the set of Reals.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  25. #25
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Actually, there is one flaw in your post. The number of Integers is not equal to the number of Real Numbers. All the sets of Integers you mention can be put into one-to-one correspondences with each other that would cover every number in both sets in any correspondence. Such could not be said for any set of Integers and the set of Reals.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Ah...but you forget the basics...

    If A=B, and B=C, then A=C
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •