Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About wucko

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Philosophy & Physics & Theology
  1. it does resonate (to me) or, this would appear so only becaouse precisely of "building up of time" this also resonates, but havent taken any effort to elaborate, the part that she is talking about "zooming in and getting thep recise same 'object' over and over again'. This is the "thing" on the micro level imho. will have to sit down and elaborate, maybe in next 5 years
  2. this is what i meant. @ shrinking is the units we measure distance in + @expansion only occurs on the large scale said units are not shrinking, its the effect of time on large scale
  3. the roman Pantheon consisted of liberal approach to religious freedom, with a twist- as long as any religion would recognise Caesar as supreme Deity (Pontidicus Maximus), the religion was legitimate (Religio Legitimata), jews had a compromise: instead of sacrificing to the Caesar they sacrificed for him, Christians however did not recognise deity to Caesar, that is why Christianity was the only 'Religio Illicita' in the roman Pantheon. Christians were thrown to the lions for 350 years, entire families, for amusement of roman masses in Colloseums. Point being, ' survived just because it had luck and government on it's side' It had no government on their side. But as for pollitical reason: rome adopted christianity as official religon arround 350 AD, precisely because of pollitical reasons - christianity became too powerful despite intense perecution. The move to creat a roman christianity was a political move.
  4. christianity was the only 'religio illicita' in the Roman Empire. Early church was thrown to the lions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/historical-secular-quotes-about-jesus/lucian-of-samosata.html http://biblehub.com/matthew/16-4.htm
  5. hi, im willing to answer any question you might have regarding mistakes, fallacies, inconsistencies that you believe you find in the bible,... so please, post your questions, i will attempt to answer all in my best strenght. ofcoourse discussion is welcome.
  6. no, if I want to keep everything. if there is *an* nothing, there is no everything. I can demostrate a nonexistant nothign though. we dont know what all we did observe, there will always be things we dont know that we know. we dont only know what we observe, we also know what we observe, but dont know we observe. "What knowledge can I gain from this different viewpoint?"" yes, but in a non-solipsystic manner only.
  7. if the second law is only a huge probability, then it matters alot if life brached it, but life can anyway. so it matters a litle bit, that it could not matter.
  8. if you mean time, its not created of anything. it builds up. @'creation' of space: i like to think about creation of 'time' only. the expansion thus becomes an effect of time solely. (as an hypothesis (@moderators)) my explanation is this: space-time is expanding faster than C because only time is expanding it. No space is created, only time causes this. its a hypothesis yes. and it works splendidly if you reverse t. my hypothesis is: acceleration is apparent, what couses expansion is time. (not space-time expansion, only time expansion). it then appears that events 'further away' (in time), are 'mooving away' faster, because any given non-local time-point has a history-line of its own, so the discrete 'time-points' add up uppon each other so that the observable dillation is an acceleration.
  9. IMHO this perticular pair ( nothing - everything ) can also imply ontological incompleteness (in reality itself).
  10. yes, paradox itself can be a signifier or even an instance of objects, i think. It might be of fruition to rethink the original dillema from this point of view - and not in my original path, where i try to resolve the paradox (and actualy fail to). how about this: [math]|Psi(r, t)>[/math] where t <=> ? ===> and t > 0 ===> let us take the second case: there being light and no darkness. We would have no way of knowing, that light as such exists, but we could have detected a set of paradoxes that start to describe something we later call "light". Now, for the purpose of the original dilemma, replace "light" with "everything". In this sense everything as a phenomena is quite in danger of being nothing. yes, I also understand, that it would probbalby be quite safe to question the existance of "everything". it would also make sense to actually say "everything IS nothing".
  11. hugh, this sort of developed . Whos right? there are things that we know, but dont know that we know them. Nothing can not-exist, but it can exist or not. Or: we cant know wether nothing exists or not, but it can not-exist, and it can also exist or not. This is my answer. Its quite final .
  12. hi, nice inputs, but regarding the dialectical existance vs nothing pair, I am more leaning into the direction of asking: not if nothing can exist, but can nothing not exist while everything can. So to speak, I am letting go of the diallectical grip in this case, which I think is a special case (regarding dialectical reasoning). @ Of course nothing exists. If it didn't, you wouldn't be able to conceive of it as a concept. i think nothing is a special case, .. yet dont have time to develop this. regarding your question: can I put doubt in conceptual thinking here, in the sense of, that I (you, we,them), can make conceptual mistakes and over time give them names. Perhapse the concept of nothing - as such - does not exist, while nothing as- such can. again, I think the notion or concept of nothing is a special case and a good path to a possible answer (to the original - stupid - question) is to ask the double negated opposite: can it at all be, that nothing would not exist? the hope here is, that this would lead to an answer, because in the opposite scernario, we should already see, that everything is nothing, and everything does not exist. its like standing on the dividing line between the Matrix and the Real, only, not ever stepping in any dirrection. Its the third pill.
  13. the second law of thermodynamics, if true, should be a consequence of the reversible physical laws applicable to ultimate particles.
  14. would you vote that there could be a 'breach' of the 2nd law in nature or not? what do you think? @ How do you mean derived in this context? http://www.sidis.net/ANIM4.htm "The second law of thermodynamics is, as we have seen, an irreversible physical law, and seems to be the one distinguishing characteristic between the real universe and the reverse universe. At the same time, that law is of such a nature, that, for the ultimate particles of matter, it does not exist; it is essentially a law concerning transformations of energy of large masses. And yet all large bodies are made up of countless numbers of the ultimate particles of matter, the laws of whose motion are all perfectly reversible. All phenomena of the reverse universe, however strange they may look, are perfectly explicable in terms of the ordinary physical laws as applied to the smallest material particles. It would seem, then, as though there must be some reason in terms of the reversible physical laws why the second law of thermodynamics must be true; that is, the second law of thermodynamics, if true, should be a consequence of the reversible physical laws applicable to ultimate particles. We are, then, confronted with the paradox of having to deduce an irreversible law from perfectly reversible ones." or from: "Loschmidt's paradox, also known as the reversibility paradox, is the objection that it should not be possible to deduce an irreversible process from time-symmetric dynamics" i dont understand this, but if you could make it sound more natural i might seriously, studying developpment of physical discourse from antient times to today (from the Earth on a collosal Turtle to quantuum physics) we get a very strong pattern in argumentation: conservative physicists vs (usualy theoretical) progressive ones: the first will support accepted +thruths+ to the point of correcting those truths to the point of complete incomprihensibility, while the new theorists usualy come up with radically simple theories. An example par exellance are the geocentrical arguments vs heliocentrical arguments. And in this grand battle of old-accepted vs new challenging ideas in physics the pattern is: the most simple (beautiful even) theories are right most of the time. Nature is simple in this manner.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.