PDA

View Full Version : There are others worlds than these.



Letti
08-20-2007, 02:00 PM
Do you believe in multiple universes?
Don't hide the details of your views.

Matt
08-20-2007, 02:12 PM
I believe it so much I can barely function in normal society.

So much so that I gave my daughter an idea for a story called "the other me" that was so well received at school that she got an award for it.

I think every decision we make creates an alternate universe and that sometimes the walls between them are very thin. This is why I love the DT so much :wub:

great thread Letti

Letti
08-20-2007, 02:18 PM
Your views always amaze me, Matt. :D

lobstrositysoup
08-20-2007, 04:32 PM
I beleive in a multiverse a lot like king's theory actually. But yes, defininitly.

I think that some of the great authors who create their own other literary worlds get their ideas from visiting them

Daghain
08-20-2007, 05:20 PM
I believe it so much I can barely function in normal society.

I'll second that. :lol:

Wuducynn
08-20-2007, 08:19 PM
I definitely do. I have since I was very little in fact.

Letti
08-20-2007, 11:00 PM
It might sound a very stupid questions.. but do you guys have proofs or evidences or are these just feelings and thoughts, ideas?
Let's tear apart this topic. It's so exciting. :D

Wuducynn
08-21-2007, 05:20 AM
Why would you think anyone would think that Letti? Now asking something like "Does Letti's avatar picture show how drop dead gorgeous she is?" Now THAT is a stupid question...or they're blind. Anyway...

As for proof? No, it's purely a strong belief I've had since I was 7 or 8 or so..now there is some scientific research going into it and from what I've read on that end there is a lot of evidence pointing towards the existence of a multi-verse. I've often thought that the things that over the years of mankinds existence, we've called supernatural have been contacts between this world and others. I believe there are parts of this world that are "thin", where you can often experience this kind of contact.
Also, changing your consciousness, heightening it via drugs, or meditation or a big one, death is able to bring us into contact with other worlds.

Jean
08-21-2007, 05:45 AM
Nikolett, please pay most serious attention to the first paragraph of AllHail's post right above mine.

As for proofs - the experience (my own; my friends' and acquaintances' in the so-called real world; my friends' and other people's I have canvassed in my own thread very similar to this at .net; people reporting weird events in media - these last may be 99.99% bumhugs, but why should I suspect all?) shows that too many things can't be explained otherwise, while multiverse would explain a lot. I love Ockham's razor. If an assumption explains more than one phenomenon, I am inclined to like the assumption more than a dozen others that would explain every phenomenon separately.

Wuducynn
08-21-2007, 05:50 AM
Well pay most serious attention to all of my post.. ;)

Matt
08-21-2007, 05:59 AM
A bit no on proof for me but I do believe a persons perception has a lot to do with their reality. That being said, I also think that we don't "see" (or perceive) as much as we are capable of.

If you imagine the electromagnetic scale--we are only able to see a very small amount of the light spectrum. Now, that doesn't prove any thing and may seem disjointed but its just an example of what we are are not aware of happening around us all the time.

Also consider the famous Homer quote (Simpsons not the blind guy :lol:0

Poor fish! They don't even know they are wet.

Letti
08-21-2007, 08:52 AM
Okay, I see your points I really do but the way it's so natural for you that there are other worlds than this it's so natural to me to think in this only one.

Wuducynn
08-21-2007, 08:56 AM
Nice avoid Letti! :cool:

Letti
08-21-2007, 09:05 AM
I know it makes me seem to be dull. But in fact I am. :P

(thanks AllHail :D)

Darkthoughts
08-21-2007, 12:47 PM
I also believe in other worlds/whens. I think what convinces me most is myths and legends.

Take something like dragons for instance. They are so ingrained in mythology, yet there would seem to be no scientific/historical evidence for them existing or having existed. So why are they so prevailent (sp)?

I would say thats because maybe in some other world they are/were a reality - and like CK says, there are places or altered states in which the ways between worlds are thin - and that some people may cross over and thats how we gain these myths etc.

I also have had these beliefs and theories since I was very young - although I still don't feel particularly eloquent on the subject, or maybe thats because its too contradictory? For example - I believe alot of legends may have formed from these chance encounters with other worlds, but I also believe many myths are easily rationalized as storys invented to explain certain phenomena or situations.
I don't think a person necessarily physically travels to another place, I think perhaps only our subconcious does...read KPAX for more enlightenment :D

However - I also agree with Matt, that are reality is shaped very much by our perceptions of it. I think acceptance of concepts we might not personally be able to percieve or comprehend though is sometimes needed...a leap of faith I guess you'd say.

Letti
08-21-2007, 12:49 PM
Do you think these worlds are different or similar or both?

Matt
08-21-2007, 12:53 PM
For me, there are as many differences as their are choices. There is a Matt somewhere that is still married to that witch for instance. :lol:

Letti
08-21-2007, 12:56 PM
poor alternative Matt ;)

Matt
08-21-2007, 01:25 PM
Yep, I don't envy that bastard.

But I bet he does me :nana:

zadok
12-12-2007, 06:26 PM
Higher dimensions, yes. Multiverses, no.

TerribleT
12-12-2007, 07:15 PM
You didn't put a "Maybe" in this poll. I think it's a good possibility, but i have nothing to base that on other than maybe just the idea that I think it would be cool.

sarah
12-12-2007, 08:41 PM
yeah, i voted yes because it just seems silly not to believe in other worlds.

JasKo
12-13-2007, 03:34 AM
Yes I do. And as long as there is no proof of it not existing, I'll continue believing it. I mean, the universe is so wide and big and huge, why wouldn't there be any other worlds, why wouldn't there be any other parallelworlds?

That's all the proof I need! :)

Darkthoughts
12-13-2007, 04:01 AM
Higher dimensions, yes. Multiverses, no.

What do you personally mean by higher dimensions? :)

sai blaine
12-13-2007, 04:26 AM
I voted yes, i think parallel worlds do exist but are sadly shut to us and hidden beneath the fabric of reality... Maybe UFOs are people from parallel words that have found a hole in time and space and have been able to enter.. Maybe there are holes or "doors" that allow us access to these worlds and people have stumbled on them by mistake? Like the Bermuder Triangle?...

jayson
12-13-2007, 05:28 AM
I voted yes. Until I see empirical proof of it being otherwise, I see no reason not to consider this a very realistic possibility.

Storyslinger
12-13-2007, 06:26 AM
What R of G said

Wuducynn
12-13-2007, 06:29 AM
Why would you think anyone would think that Letti? Now asking something like "Does Letti's avatar picture show how drop dead gorgeous she is?" Now THAT is a stupid question...or they're blind. Anyway...

As for proof? No, it's purely a strong belief I've had since I was 7 or 8 or so..now there is some scientific research going into it and from what I've read on that end there is a lot of evidence pointing towards the existence of a multi-verse. I've often thought that the things that over the years of mankinds existence, we've called supernatural have been contacts between this world and others. I believe there are parts of this world that are "thin", where you can often experience this kind of contact.
Also, changing your consciousness, heightening it via drugs, or meditation or a big one, death is able to bring us into contact with other worlds.

What this asshole said.

sai blaine
12-13-2007, 06:35 AM
:unsure: ...Here comes the men in white jackets ready to take you "home" Allhail...

Wuducynn
12-13-2007, 06:36 AM
They've already came and they made for a delicious breakfast. Send more please, and fatter ones this time.

sai blaine
12-13-2007, 06:54 AM
:) Yes Kingy...

*walks away slowly* :ninja:

zadok
12-13-2007, 07:28 AM
Higher dimensions, yes. Multiverses, no.

What do you personally mean by higher dimensions? :)

:cool:
Nah, not for me.

We live in a 4 dimensional world. There are at least 10 dimensions. That means there are many things happening "behind the scenes", but that has nothing to do with alternate universes.

Letti
12-13-2007, 07:57 AM
Higher dimensions, yes. Multiverses, no.

What do you personally mean by higher dimensions? :)

:cool:
Nah, not for me.

We live in a 4 dimensional world. There are at least 10 dimensions. That means there are many things happening "behind the scenes", but that has nothing to do with alternate universes.

We live in a 4 dimensional world? How so?
And there are at least 10??
You made me curious. Give me more details, please.

CPU
12-13-2007, 08:40 AM
In regards to a multiverse I vote yes. :P


There has been some empirical evidence that definitely points to the existence of multiple universes (not necessarily parallel universes).

Beyond the potential scientific evidence, the existence of mulitple, and even parallel universe, clears up a lot of theological/metaphysical questions (imo).

If every possible universe exists, as in Matt's example (poor guy :)), then it might be possible that an intelligence exists that can view and interact with all possible universes simultaneously. It might even be possible that through quantum entanglement we may occasionally get a glimpse of these other universes (which lends itself to some intriguing explanations for "psychic" phenomenon).

zadok
12-13-2007, 09:05 AM
We live in a 4 dimensional world? How so?
And there are at least 10??
You made me curious. Give me more details, please.


Technically, we live in a 3 dimensional spatial world that we can measure (length, width and height), and the 4th is Time. See Einstein's General and Special Theory of Relativity.

When connected to Quantum Mechanics, at least 10 dimensions space/time/gravity etc. are required.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/dimensions.html

Toren
12-13-2007, 09:11 AM
I'm an agnostic about a lot of things really.

Scientifically, it doesn't seem entirely plausible for there to be parallel worlds. A lot of people may say there is no evidence of parallel universes, so they likely do not exist, but if I may use an overused quote: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I'm too imaginative to rule out the possibility of things like these. I won't ever completely believe or disbelieve in things like this until I see hard evidence with my own eyes.

I don't believe they exist, but I don't disbelieve either, if that makes any sense.

While I'm not sure of the existance of parallel worlds, I certainly hope they and other things like them exist. It would be quite disappointing if everything supernatural turned out to be false and hoaxes, no?

EDIT: I didn't vote because I feel that neither of the choices apply to me.

Matt
12-13-2007, 09:30 AM
I totally agree Toren--I believe it with all my heart.

Also destiny or Ka

She-Oy
12-13-2007, 10:10 AM
I absolutely believe in multi-universes. But maybe my definition of universe isn't the same as everyone else's. It's a little like the multi-demensional thing in that there is so much we as humans ARE NOT seeing/feeling/acknowledging. I don't necessarily believe there is another "me" living on planet Nimrodomania in Sector 19, Quandrant 23.

Hmmm, let me try to put this in an easy analogy: We are a lot like ants. Ants who travel back and forth, doing work and what we are told (for the most part). Doubting me at this moment? Look at the ants lined up, marching to destinations, doing what they need to do (picking up a crumb) then turning around and going back home. Then imagine yourself in an airplane, looking down at the ground, watching cars in lines...doing the same thing.

I don't know this for a fact, but I don't think ants realize we (humans) are here. To them we are like the unseen hand when step on them, brush them away with our brooms, destroy their homes. And when this happens...when we do something to disrupt their daily lives, they scatter and what was once "order" to them, turns in chaos. But after a few moments, they pick up the pieces and go right back to doing what they have always done.

This is exactly what humans do on a larger scale. After any kind of disaster... what we call order turns into fear and chaos...but we as a species do regroup and we recover.

I think we too have some sort of unseen hand that comes down disrupts us from time to time. Now I'm not saying that unseen hand is "god", but something more like we are to ants.

And to believe that, I would have to believe in things I cannot see, touch, feel or hear...something in another demension we cannot comprehend.

But I don't worry about it any more than the ants worry about me...it's just my place in nature.

Matt
12-13-2007, 11:35 AM
Fish don't even know they are wet :(

Same kind of thing I am thinking

JasKo
12-13-2007, 12:04 PM
Don't drink water people, fish fuck in it... :/

(Sorry for offtopic, when Matt mentioned fish, I just had to say this!)

Aesculapius
12-13-2007, 07:22 PM
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n319/Obelison/two/12.jpg

12 universe dodecohedron makeup of this multiverse.

LVX

LadyHitchhiker
12-13-2007, 07:31 PM
well I think that multi-verses explains a lot too... maybe that's why I used to see our cat walk through our house after he passed away... maybe he was visiting me from a multi-verse?

Explanation for ghosts? They're not really dead in the multi-verses?

Aesculapius
12-13-2007, 08:23 PM
I absolutely believe in multi-universes. But maybe my definition of universe isn't the same as everyone else's. It's a little like the multi-demensional thing in that there is so much we as humans ARE NOT seeing/feeling/acknowledging. I don't necessarily believe there is another "me" living on planet Nimrodomania in Sector 19, Quandrant 23.

Hmmm, let me try to put this in an easy analogy: We are a lot like ants. Ants who travel back and forth, doing work and what we are told (for the most part). Doubting me at this moment? Look at the ants lined up, marching to destinations, doing what they need to do (picking up a crumb) then turning around and going back home. Then imagine yourself in an airplane, looking down at the ground, watching cars in lines...doing the same thing.

I don't know this for a fact, but I don't think ants realize we (humans) are here. To them we are like the unseen hand when step on them, brush them away with our brooms, destroy their homes. And when this happens...when we do something to disrupt their daily lives, they scatter and what was once "order" to them, turns in chaos. But after a few moments, they pick up the pieces and go right back to doing what they have always done.

This is exactly what humans do on a larger scale. After any kind of disaster... what we call order turns into fear and chaos...but we as a species do regroup and we recover.

I think we too have some sort of unseen hand that comes down disrupts us from time to time. Now I'm not saying that unseen hand is "god", but something more like we are to ants.

And to believe that, I would have to believe in things I cannot see, touch, feel or hear...something in another demension we cannot comprehend.

But I don't worry about it any more than the ants worry about me...it's just my place in nature.


The Lyon And The Gnat

To the still Covert of a Wood
About the prime of Day,
A Lyon, satiated with Food,
With stately Pace, and sullen Mood,
Now took his lazy way.

To Rest he there himself compos'd,
And in his Mind revolv'd,
How Great a Person it enclos'd,
How free from Danger he repos'd,
Though now in Ease dissolv'd!

Who Guard, nor Centinel did need,
Despising as a Jest
All whom the Forest else did feed,
As Creatures of an abject Breed,
Who durst not him molest.

But in the Air a Sound he heard,
That gave him some dislike;
At which he shook his grisly Beard,
Enough to make the Woods affeard,
And stretch'd his Paw to strike.

When on his lifted Nose there fell
A Creature, slight of Wing,
Who neither fear'd his Grin, nor Yell,
Nor Strength, that in his Jaws did dwell,
But gores him with her Sting.

Transported with th' Affront and Pain,
He terribly exclaims,
Protesting, if it comes again,
Its guilty Blood the Grass shall stain.
And to surprize it aims.

The scoffing Gnat now laugh'd aloud,
And bids him upwards view
The Jupiter within the Cloud,
That humbl'd him, who was so proud,
And this sharp Thunder threw.

That Taunt no Lyon's Heart cou'd bear;
And now much more he raves,
Whilst this new Perseus in the Air
Do's War and Strife again declare,
And all his Terrour braves.

Upon his haughty Neck she rides,
Then on his lashing Tail;
(Which need not now provoke his Sides)
Where she her slender Weapon guides,
And makes all Patience fail.

A Truce at length he must propose,
The Terms to be her Own;
Who likewise Rest and Quiet chose,
Contented now her Life to close,
When she'd such Triumph known.

You mighty Men, who meaner ones despise,
Learn from this Fable to become more Wise;
You see the Lyon may be vext with Flies

Anne Kingsmill Finch

hisDudeness
12-25-2007, 03:19 PM
Universe is not a term I like. I perfer multiverse

Matt
12-26-2007, 01:47 PM
I can totally agree with you on that.

<--hugs the mulitverse

Woofer
01-11-2008, 05:34 AM
We live in a 4 dimensional world? How so?
And there are at least 10??
You made me curious. Give me more details, please.


Technically, we live in a 3 dimensional spatial world that we can measure (length, width and height), and the 4th is Time. See Einstein's General and Special Theory of Relativity.

When connected to Quantum Mechanics, at least 10 dimensions space/time/gravity etc. are required.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/dimensions.html

From the wiki article on string theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory):


Another problem is that the vacuum structure of the theory, called the string theory landscape, is not well understood. As string theory is presently understood, it appears to contain a large number of distinct, meta-stable vacua, perhaps 10[pretend this is superscripted]500[/pretend this is superscripted] or more. Each of these corresponds to a different universe, with a different collection of particles and forces.

Different dimensions and different universes.

Wuducynn
01-11-2008, 10:26 AM
<--hugs the mulitverse

*crushes hugged multiverse*

alinda
01-11-2008, 10:41 AM
yes, yes, yes, yes, yes I more or less think they are all right here now tho'

Wuducynn
01-11-2008, 12:15 PM
yes, yes, yes, yes, yes I more or less think they are all right here now tho'

Crushed universes?

Woofer
01-11-2008, 12:40 PM
Mmmm, multiverse over crushed ice. I'm in! :cool:

Matt
01-11-2008, 12:54 PM
That should really be the flavor of the month right there :lol:

alinda
01-11-2008, 01:23 PM
oh yeah!! Sounds delightfully refreshing!

William50
01-11-2008, 02:45 PM
Of course there are other worlds than these. I just think that humans are to inferior of a species to know about them.

alinda
01-11-2008, 02:47 PM
I think its more that weve forgotten it. but yeah.

Wuducynn
01-11-2008, 04:24 PM
*sigh* I loved The Dark Linda..I wish she would come back... :(

HanzouNorak
01-11-2008, 05:07 PM
Thank Fuck i didn't have to start a topic like this

i believe in it, hell ive........... ehhhh im at a quandry wether or not to say it.

Wuducynn
01-11-2008, 05:09 PM
Say it.

HanzouNorak
01-11-2008, 05:17 PM
to hell with it, holding things in is for the castle rooks, ive been though several that i can remember and probaly millions more i can't,

infact, im sure almost all of us have been though about a million or more universes we cant remember, reincarnation, performed by somthing godlike, but mindless and programmed so it wont be able to have feeling about what has created or destroyed. but theres also a bad side to this-

I'm not making this up, dead serious.

Wuducynn
01-11-2008, 05:59 PM
to hell with it, holding things in is for the castle rooks, ive been though several that i can remember and probaly millions more i can't,

I believe this is definitely possible



infact, im sure almost all of us have been though about a million or more universes we cant remember, reincarnation, performed by somthing godlike, but mindless and programmed so it wont be able to have feeling about what has created or destroyed. but theres also a bad side to this-

I'm not making this up, dead serious.

I believe you're serious, but I don't understand what you're saying here, could you go into more detail?

HanzouNorak
01-11-2008, 06:09 PM
go into more detail? i could write a seires that rivals The Dark Tower itself. im not going to tell ether life story tonight but, some things people should know;

there are mini-portals to other universes called glitches, theres only about 10 per universe, but they're constantly moving, some times they stay put from anywhere between years and a millisecond. the can move anywhere at anytime into anyplace, but all they can do is make small objects fall into another universe. the largest thats probaly ever gone though is a clothespin, if any of you have had a small object disappear for no reason and there is no cause and it has never been found again, reply to this.

as for some more disturbing things, well,

id say those are for another day.

ATG
01-11-2008, 08:01 PM
It might sound a very stupid questions.. but do you guys have proofs or evidences or are these just feelings and thoughts, ideas?
Let's tear apart this topic. It's so exciting. :D


I lived in a haunted apartment. Really.

Stuff moved. My television was knocked over. Other things.

Letti
01-12-2008, 01:13 AM
It might sound a very stupid questions.. but do you guys have proofs or evidences or are these just feelings and thoughts, ideas?
Let's tear apart this topic. It's so exciting. :D


I lived in a haunted apartment. Really.

Stuff moved. My television was knocked over. Other things.

But that would be a proof for ghosts, am I wrong? Not for other universes... or how so?


Thank Fuck i didn't have to start a topic like this

i believe in it, hell ive........... ehhhh im at a quandry wether or not to say it.

You know I was interested in others' opinions. That's how I work.

Brice
01-12-2008, 03:48 AM
It might sound a very stupid questions.. but do you guys have proofs or evidences or are these just feelings and thoughts, ideas?
Let's tear apart this topic. It's so exciting. :D


I lived in a haunted apartment. Really.

Stuff moved. My television was knocked over. Other things.

But that would be a proof for ghosts, am I wrong? Not for other universes... or how so?



Or more precisely evidence...and even then of a subjective, undemonstratable sort. Proof is relatively absolute.

arrawyn
05-08-2010, 07:30 PM
I know this thread is super old, but i'm new here, and it's a fascinating topic, so i thought i'd add to it :).

i believe in parallel/alternate/multi-universes / other worlds - whatever you want to call it - though I don't have any proof really. But until I have proof that there definitively ISN'T other worlds, i'm going to continue believing!

I was just saying to my hubby the other day that there are other worlds than what we are experiencing right now - whole past worlds that are buried under our current civilizations across the planet - like ancient cities in europe - in fact, in Edinburgh, Scotland there's a whole underground city (you can take a tour of) that the modern day Edinburgh has been built on-top of - so when you're walking around the city, there's really lots of hidden streets and old rooms and buildings (and vaults) underneath! and who is to say in parallel/other universes - for example, the Old Edinburgh (of the middle ages) isn't the current one? and that it hasn't evolved (or 'moved on'?) into the one today?


and also, more philosophically, everyone is in their own insular worlds, living their own lives in their own towns/cities, and there are other worlds everywhere (everyone else that is having their own experiences that you might not be able to relate to) which i think is interesting to think about too.

i wonder if there really are doors to these multiverses here on earth...hmmm...

Letti
05-08-2010, 09:19 PM
and also, more philosophically, everyone is in their own insular worlds, living their own lives in their own towns/cities, and there are other worlds everywhere (everyone else that is having their own experiences that you might not be able to relate to) which i think is interesting to think about too.

I can totally agree with this thought.
Welcome to the site. :rose:

Melike
05-09-2010, 02:00 AM
Yes I do. And as long as there is no proof of it not existing, I'll continue believing it. I mean, the universe is so wide and big and huge, why wouldn't there be any other worlds, why wouldn't there be any other parallelworlds?

That's all the proof I need! :)

My point is this too. I think believing this universe exists just for us, just for our world, would be egocentrism, would be nothing different from believing you are the center of the world.

So yes, I believe there should be other worlds. Or other dimensions, other universes, or other world in our universe; call it as how you want to see it. But, I can't say I believe in travelling to them is possible in some way. I also can't say it is impossible.


and also, more philosophically, everyone is in their own insular worlds, living their own lives in their own towns/cities, and there are other worlds everywhere (everyone else that is having their own experiences that you might not be able to relate to) which i think is interesting to think about too.

I was going to say this. People are other worlds to me. Many of them had became full of deserts, not allowing life on them. A few of them are full of seasons, rain forests, oceans you would like to explore. That is how I choose friends. :D

Brice
05-09-2010, 09:45 AM
beautifully said

pathoftheturtle
05-09-2010, 09:45 AM
When I told one of my friends, years ago, that I don't believe that there are parallel universes, really, he said that that showed that I don't believe in the reality of other people. That totally surprised me, because it was exactly what I was thinking about him!
These days, I am more undecided on the question, but I still know that I don't have to think that other people have whole worlds of their own in order to know that this whole world we're in does not belong just to me.

Brice
05-09-2010, 09:48 AM
Of course not...that would be unrealistic....it belongs to ME. :P

Quicksilver
05-15-2010, 08:16 PM
I think other life forms have visited us in space craft and via interdeminsional travel.

As soon as they studied us they put barriers in place that will never allow us to get out of this galaxy.
Humans are a plaque and by our own actions we have shown that we cannot be trusted.
If time travel were possible they would probably have already came back and destroyed us.

SynysterSaint
05-16-2010, 07:22 PM
This is the physicist in me coming out: I cannot/will not believe in something that cannot be measured or observed. That's why I'm Atheist and why I simply believe in the observable or measurable universe. I know, it seems a little bit dull. But still... it's all I can allow myself to believe. Do you know how hard it is to convert (literally convert: I forced myself out of beliefs I held sacred) yourself out of Christianity when you're 14, just getting into science, in a family full of Christians? :lol:

This is the way I view things: everyone else has the burden of proof; I get the luxury of sitting back and awaiting their proof.

SynysterSaint
05-16-2010, 07:25 PM
I think other life forms have visited us in space craft and via interdeminsional travel.

If time travel were possible they would probably have already came back and destroyed us.

So you believe in interdimensional-traveling aliens that can constrict us to a galaxy but you won't believe in time-travel? Those must be some old aliens if they're traveling millions of light-years to simply put up a barrier! Time-travel is theoretically possible, by the way. Just like short-range teleportation has been proven and achieved in non-living substances. Just because it isn't commercially available doesn't mean it can't/doesn't happen. I would suggest you look up tachyons. I'm not sure if they've been proven yet, but they have been measured and are believed to be able to travel through time (not consciously, though... they're particles).

Brice
05-17-2010, 03:15 AM
Tachyons have not yet been proven to exist.

Of course everything that is not impossible has some probability of existing. Just some are more likely than others. Tachyons however do not teleport, or travel time that we know of though (if that's what you're suggesting). It is merely that IF they exist then that appears to be an action of theirs.

In fairness here though I don't think those imaginary aliens would need to be old. Also in fairness though I'd travel millions of light years to protect the universe/multiverse from our poisonous cosmic stupidity too.

Quicksilver
05-17-2010, 05:13 PM
So you believe in interdimensional-traveling aliens that can constrict us to a galaxy but you won't believe in time-travel?

Whoa Chief......I didn't say I didn't believe in time travel....I think anything that can be conceived by the mind of man is possible....it may not be practical at this time...but it is possible. Just look back at the works of Jules Verne....he foresaw space travel, submarines and atomic power. He also wrote of time travel.....maybe history will prove him correct that it is feasible.

I was making an (vain it seems) attempt at humor.

You have to admit that Man's track record has not been too great as far as using our minds and resources to the common good.....we have wasted untold amounts of both on trying to destroy each other.
I am a student of military history and the amount of material destroyed in this century alone during warfare is staggering.
On the flip side some of the fantastic technololy we have today is a result of research that was intended to be used against our "enemies".

My point was that any advanced race that happened onto our ball of dirt (by whatever means of travel) might want to keep us here untill we are no longer a threat to the universe.

SynysterSaint
05-17-2010, 09:53 PM
Sorry if I misunderstood. I read this:


If time travel were possible

and jumped to conclusions(?).

I agree that humans have a shitty track record in some sense, but you also need to realize the undeniable good that has come from humanity. For as many bad things that happen, there are a million more good things. Sure, the holocaust was awful, but it united millions of people in their fight against tyranny. Sure, the attacks of 9/11 were awful, but it united America at a pivotal time in its history (although, I'm not all-too-happy with the outcome of that "togetherness"). The point is, bad things happen, but good things can and have come from them. Not to mention, it's very possible that extraterrestrials have just as many moral issues as our species does. What I don't understand is why you would immediately jump to the aliens being appalled by our species instead of being moved by the rose of generosity and love that grows within it. Sometimes destruction and evil are necessary in order to appreciate the good that occurs in the world. Can you honestly tell me that you would appreciate everything you have and all those around you as much if you didn't believe the world was a bad place?

pathoftheturtle
05-19-2010, 07:14 AM
...I cannot/will not believe in something that cannot be measured or observed.
... the way I view things: everyone else has the burden of proof; I get the luxury of sitting back and awaiting their proof.Yet your personal states of belief and/or disbelief cannot be directly observed by the rest of us; therefore, by the same token, that point doesn't really matter. One thing which I, for one, don't have is the luxury of time to waste arguing with the obstinate. You sound most self-satisfied, so all I have to say is just go on, then; enjoy that position for as long as you can.


I think other life forms have visited us in space craft and via interdeminsional travel.

As soon as they studied us they put barriers in place that will never allow us to get out of this galaxy.
Humans are a plaque and by our own actions we have shown that we cannot be trusted.
If time travel were possible they would probably have already came back and destroyed us.If not removed regularly by good oral hygiene measures, plaque can lead to cavities or periodontal problems (such as gingivitis or chronic periodontitis).

:lol:

Quicksilver
05-19-2010, 06:03 PM
Humans are a plaque

I stand corrupted.:doh:

Brice
05-19-2010, 06:04 PM
:lol:

SynysterSaint
05-19-2010, 08:28 PM
Yet your personal states of belief and/or disbelief cannot be directly observed by the rest of us; therefore, by the same token, that point doesn't really matter. One thing which I, for one, don't have is the luxury of time to waste arguing with the obstinate. You sound most self-satisfied, so all I have to say is just go on, then; enjoy that position for as long as you can.

Here are my beliefs on the universe: read the works of Stephen Hawking. Burden of proof simply means that when someone states a theory or idea that goes against the proven norm, it is their job to express proof or evidence that led them to a conclusion. We can prove things about our universe, such as its existence, but we can't prove that other universes exist; therefore, I don't believe in them. Simple as that. If someone can prove to me, for instance, that other universes exist, then I will believe in them. Nice try, though. I haven't heard that rebuttal before :) I'm completely serious, by the way.

Brice
05-20-2010, 06:50 AM
Yet your personal states of belief and/or disbelief cannot be directly observed by the rest of us; therefore, by the same token, that point doesn't really matter. One thing which I, for one, don't have is the luxury of time to waste arguing with the obstinate. You sound most self-satisfied, so all I have to say is just go on, then; enjoy that position for as long as you can.

Here are my beliefs on the universe: read the works of Stephen Hawking. Burden of proof simply means that when someone states a theory or idea that goes against the proven norm, it is their job to express proof or evidence that led them to a conclusion. We can prove things about our universe, such as its existence, but we can't prove that other universes exist; therefore, I don't believe in them. Simple as that. If someone can prove to me, for instance, that other universes exist, then I will believe in them. Nice try, though. I haven't heard that rebuttal before :) I'm completely serious, by the way.

As a long time agnostic (for lack of a better word) I'll say they only have a burden of proof if they care what you believe. If they are not trying to win converts or to convince they are free of any burden. Mere belief does not obligate anyone to prove or provide evidence to the rest of humanity. For example if I believe in god, but really don't give a fuck if you believe and in no way try to imprint upon you my belief then I have no burden of proving anything, right?

SynysterSaint
05-20-2010, 07:09 PM
As a long time agnostic (for lack of a better word) I'll say they only have a burden of proof if they care what you believe. If they are not trying to win converts or to convince they are free of any burden. Mere belief does not obligate anyone to prove or provide evidence to the rest of humanity. For example if I believe in god, but really don't give a fuck if you believe and in no way try to imprint upon you my belief then I have no burden of proving anything, right?

Exactly. If you don't want to give evidence or support (or can't) for your beliefs, then it's no big deal; I just won't agree with them. It's really not an issue. My beliefs stem from the evidence that scientists have put forth about our existence. If someone here were trying to convince me of something, then the burden of proof falls onto them. However, no one here is trying to convince anyone of anything; it's just a simple discussion. Therefore, proof isn't necessary. I just pointed out "burden of proof" to explain why I think the way I do about our existence. Nothing more.

Brice
05-21-2010, 05:29 AM
But what's provable now wouldn't have been provable a thousand or a hundred years ago even, no? Really truth is only relative to our current knowledge. There was a time when you would have believed the earth was flat or we were the center of our galaxy based on existing knowledge going by that logic. Science's only real advantage is that it is mutable where religion is generally less so...or not at all.

I'm a cantankerous fucker and tend to argue against my own logic sometimes. :lol:

pathoftheturtle
05-21-2010, 08:43 AM
I'm a cantankerous fucker and tend to argue against my own logic sometimes. :lol:Probably the thing which I most admire about you. :lol:

Yet your personal states of belief and/or disbelief cannot be directly observed by the rest of us; therefore, by the same token, that point doesn't really matter. One thing which I, for one, don't have is the luxury of time to waste arguing with the obstinate. You sound most self-satisfied, so all I have to say is just go on, then; enjoy that position for as long as you can.

Here are my beliefs on the universe: read the works of Stephen Hawking. Burden of proof simply means that when someone states a theory or idea that goes against the proven norm, it is their job to express proof or evidence that led them to a conclusion. We can prove things about our universe, such as its existence, but we can't prove that other universes exist; therefore, I don't believe in them. Simple as that. If someone can prove to me, for instance, that other universes exist, then I will believe in them. Nice try, though. I haven't heard that rebuttal before :) I'm completely serious, by the way.Hawking makes a good source, though he did not invent the basic principle that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.”

For my earlier “rebuttal,” I must admit also to having other influences. I am not a real James devotee -- please don’t get that idea -- or any kind of pragmatist, in fact; but just to show that my response is no brand new attitude –-

“…a man who in a company of gentlemen made no advances, asked a warrant for every concession, and believed no one’s word without proof, would cut himself off by such churlishness from all the social rewards that a more trusting spirit would earn, -- so here, one who should shut himself up in snarling logicality and try to make the gods exhort his recognition willy-nilly, or not get it at all, might cut himself off forever from his only opportunity of making the gods’ acquaintance. …”

~ William James,
“The Will To Believe”
In the same address, he argued –
” …to say…‘Do not decide, but leave the question open,’ is itself a passional decision, -- just like deciding yes or no, -- and is attended with the same risk of losing the truth.
…There are two ways of looking at our duty in the matter of opinion… We must know the truth; and we must avoid error … they are not two ways of stating an identical commandment, they are two separable laws. Although it may indeed happen that when we believe the truth A, we escape as an incidental consequence from believing the falsehood B, it hardly ever happens that by merely disbelieving B we necessarily believe A. We may… fall into believing other falsehoods…just as bad…or we may escape B by not believing anything at all, not even A.
…he who says, ‘Better to go without belief forever than believe a lie!’ merely shows his own preponderant private horror of becoming a dupe. He may be critical of many of his desires and fears, but this fear he slavishly obeys. …
…Our errors are surely not such awfully solemn things. In a world where we are so certain to incur them in spite of all our caution, a certain lightness of heart seems healthier…the most fitting for an empiricist...” You see, without SOME presumption, some emotional preconception, the scientific method could not function at all. Robotic objectivity devises no new hypotheses. Only fools disparage the passionate, imaginative approach: that is one great human virtue.

Your claim that existence is a proven quality of “our” universe seems highly Cartesian to me; again you assume that the evidence of your own senses is the one unshakable standard. A Chinese proverb has that, “The man who doubts everything must even doubt his own uncertainty, and is so doomed to hopeless confusion.” Consider the depths to which such thinkers as David Hume have carried enquiry on human understanding. Start by claiming that the idea of God is a subjective illusion, and end in the realization that all self-perception is equally doubtable. To all appearances, YOU are just a segment of the world mechanism which happens somehow to imagine that it is able to have imagination. LOL, judge not lest ye be judged.

In short, I don’t mean to say that I don’t care about your soul: I’m saying that if you were really soulless, then you’d care about no one. Some truths are beyond measure.

Regarding the alternate worlds theory, I’ve stated already that I have my own skepticisms, but I know that there are physicists who do active research with it.
I don’t expect particle experiments to be important here, though; this thread is focused more toward speculative philosophy. The theory’s concepts are quite thought-provoking, and I don’t think that we have actually gone much off-topic at all. So far, we’ve discussed theology only in a tangential way, but there are a lot of interesting points to be found in comparing the two disciplines. Those connections are particularly relevant, I think, when we’re looking at extra-dimensional metaphysics in context of TDT. They’re pretty central to the whole series, IMO, although that’s all quite complicated. Another novel which probes some religious implications of the science in a more straightforward manner is Robert Heinlein’s Job: A Comedy of Justice.

Quicksilver
05-21-2010, 06:22 PM
Many years ago I read a Sci-fi story about a group of designers that had built a super computer (this was in the days when a small computer took up a big room).
Once they had everything hooked up and ready to go one of the guys put in the first question which was, "is there a God"?
The computer hummed for a day or two (I said I read it many years ago) and then finally the answer appeared on the monitor.
The answer was "there is now".

When they tried to pull the plug a bolt of electricity flew out of the machine and killed them.

God created Man......Man created God.

Bear667
05-21-2010, 07:59 PM
Jumping in with both feet here.

I do indeed believe in the Multi-verse. Do I have proof? Not a lick, but here is my theory Daja Vue (spelling ?) Could it be that the effect that we feel as daja vue actually happened to our other "selves" and through a connection that both of ourselves have, we, on this side, "feel like we've done this before"?

OR

I should not eat pizza before going to bed. LOL.:cowboy:

pathoftheturtle
05-24-2010, 03:41 PM
Many years ago I read a Sci-fi story about a group of designers that had built a super computer (this was in the days when a small computer took up a big room).
Once they had everything hooked up and ready to go one of the guys put in the first question which was, "is there a God"?
The computer hummed for a day or two (I said I read it many years ago) and then finally the answer appeared on the monitor.
The answer was "there is now".

When they tried to pull the plug a bolt of electricity flew out of the machine and killed them.

God created Man......Man created God.:lol:
"Dr. Ian Malcolm: God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man kills God. Man creates dinosaurs. ...
Dr. Ellie Sattler: ... Dinosaurs eat man. Woman inherits the earth."

-- Jurassic ParkSrsly, tho, here's another classic take on the concept:
Colossus: The Forbin Project (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177/)
http://thestuffyougottawatch.com/picse-h/forbin.jpg
The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die.

Bear: "Déjà vu"

SynysterSaint
05-24-2010, 09:59 PM
But what's provable now wouldn't have been provable a thousand or a hundred years ago even, no? Really truth is only relative to our current knowledge. There was a time when you would have believed the earth was flat or we were the center of our galaxy based on existing knowledge going by that logic. Science's only real advantage is that it is mutable where religion is generally less so...or not at all.

I'm a cantankerous fucker and tend to argue against my own logic sometimes. :lol:

Exactly. My knowledge is constantly morphing and changing, and, as such, so are my views. I would rather view the world with fresh eyes every few years than to confine myself to one set of beliefs that have no backing or ground for the rest of my life. You may claim that it's different than that, but in reality it isn't: when you set your beliefs on zero facts, then they have no motive or possibility of changing unless you suddenly change your mind. With science, you are always guaranteed a fresh image. I would say that garnering science is much more interesting than playing darts in the dark.

SynysterSaint
05-24-2010, 10:17 PM
Hawking makes a good source, though he did not invent the basic principle that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.”

Does he have to be the one to come up with it?


For my earlier “rebuttal,” I must admit also to having other influences. I am not a real James devotee -- please don’t get that idea -- or any kind of pragmatist, in fact; but just to show that my response is no brand new attitude –-

“…a man who in a company of gentlemen made no advances, asked a warrant for every concession, and believed no one’s word without proof, would cut himself off by such churlishness from all the social rewards that a more trusting spirit would earn, -- so here, one who should shut himself up in snarling logicality and try to make the gods exhort his recognition willy-nilly, or not get it at all, might cut himself off forever from his only opportunity of making the gods’ acquaintance. …”

~ William James,
“The Will To Believe”

I would be more obliged to listen to Mr. James if he wasn't so caught up in his own foolishness. I'm sorry to say it, but his argument is a circular one; an argument that begs the question. His own conclusion is used as proof of his premises; one should not stick to facts because it will make you lose site of the divine, which is furthered by your desire to conquer the divine with logic. No matter how you spin it, his argument is self-destructive.


In the same address, he argued –
” …to say…‘Do not decide, but leave the question open,’ is itself a passional decision, -- just like deciding yes or no, -- and is attended with the same risk of losing the truth.
…There are two ways of looking at our duty in the matter of opinion… We must know the truth; and we must avoid error … they are not two ways of stating an identical commandment, they are two separable laws. Although it may indeed happen that when we believe the truth A, we escape as an incidental consequence from believing the falsehood B, it hardly ever happens that by merely disbelieving B we necessarily believe A. We may… fall into believing other falsehoods…just as bad…or we may escape B by not believing anything at all, not even A.
…he who says, ‘Better to go without belief forever than believe a lie!’ merely shows his own preponderant private horror of becoming a dupe. He may be critical of many of his desires and fears, but this fear he slavishly obeys. …
…Our errors are surely not such awfully solemn things. In a world where we are so certain to incur them in spite of all our caution, a certain lightness of heart seems healthier…the most fitting for an empiricist...” You see, without SOME presumption, some emotional preconception, the scientific method could not function at all. Robotic objectivity devises no new hypotheses. Only fools disparage the passionate, imaginative approach: that is one great human virtue.

Well that's not true at all. Hypothesis are derived from simple observations, which is then tested through experiments and proven to be legitimate or illegitimate. There's no belief or emotional content needed; ideally, the scientific method is completely robotic. It's meant to create papers and ideas that can be tested and tried countless times with no differences in results.


Your claim that existence is a proven quality of “our” universe seems highly Cartesian to me; again you assume that the evidence of your own senses is the one unshakable standard. A Chinese proverb has that, “The man who doubts everything must even doubt his own uncertainty, and is so doomed to hopeless confusion.” Consider the depths to which such thinkers as David Hume have carried enquiry on human understanding. Start by claiming that the idea of God is a subjective illusion, and end in the realization that all self-perception is equally doubtable. To all appearances, YOU are just a segment of the world mechanism which happens somehow to imagine that it is able to have imagination. LOL, judge not lest ye be judged.

I go by the evidence that myself and others have collected, sorted and calculated. Of course the reality may be that we're completely wrong and our observations are useless, but until that day occurs, I stick to the facts that have been proven to the best of our ability. It takes no faith to believe in science; it takes faith to question it. If you are really so concerned with our inability to understand the world around us, then, by all means, try to convince yourself that I should question what I can prove. But reality isn't as subjective as you make it out to seem. Gravity is gravity. Wavelengths are wavelengths; they don't magically change properties. Sure, science could be wrong. But as far as we know, some simple properties will never be proven wrong.


In short, I don’t mean to say that I don’t care about your soul: I’m saying that if you were really soulless, then you’d care about no one. Some truths are beyond measure.

Thank you for the bode of confidence. Just because I'm cold about belief does not mean that I'm cold about humanity.


Regarding the alternate worlds theory, I’ve stated already that I have my own skepticisms, but I know that there are physicists who do active research with it.

I'm going to cut off the rest of your statement and stop you here for one reason: you're delving into the realm of string physics. The thing about string physics is that it isn't real science; instead of deriving hypothesis from observed measurements and testing them with experiments, it is deriving experiments to prove their guesses. I do not condone the raping of science, which is why I got out of the physics program at my school and entered the English program.

pathoftheturtle
05-26-2010, 08:39 AM
... My knowledge is constantly morphing and changing, and, as such, so are my views. I would rather view the world with fresh eyes every few years than to confine myself to one set of beliefs that have no backing or ground for the rest of my life. You may claim that it's different than that, but in reality it isn't: when you set your beliefs on zero facts, then they have no motive or possibility of changing unless you suddenly change your mind. With science, you are always guaranteed a fresh image. I would say that garnering science is much more interesting than playing darts in the dark.<_< We probably WILL go far off topic if we turn to formal debate on the merits/demerits of theism, but you sound so arrogant. People tend to have strong feelings on the subject of religion. Perhaps it makes you defensive when I contradict your assertions about your belief system; I hope you’ll understand that you’re the one who started it, from my point of view. All you say is how superior your way is… yet I know from my own experience that I don’t need to be converted.
Certainly constant growth and continual learning are essential. It offends me to hear it said that, as a person of faith, I am incapable of those things. Right there is something which I think that you have a lot to learn about.

Hawking makes a good source, though he did not invent the basic principle that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.”

Does he have to be the one to come up with it?I was thinking that you might expand upon your reasons for bringing him up.

For my earlier “rebuttal,” I must admit also to having other influences. I am not a real James devotee -- please don’t get that idea -- or any kind of pragmatist, in fact; but just to show that my response is no brand new attitude –-

“…a man who in a company of gentlemen made no advances, asked a warrant for every concession, and believed no one’s word without proof, would cut himself off by such churlishness from all the social rewards that a more trusting spirit would earn, -- so here, one who should shut himself up in snarling logicality and try to make the gods exhort his recognition willy-nilly, or not get it at all, might cut himself off forever from his only opportunity of making the gods’ acquaintance. …”

~ William James,
“The Will To Believe”

I would be more obliged to listen to Mr. James if he wasn't so caught up in his own foolishness. I'm sorry to say it, but his argument is a circular one; an argument that begs the question. His own conclusion is used as proof of his premises; one should not stick to facts because it will make you lose site of the divine, which is furthered by your desire to conquer the divine with logic. No matter how you spin it, his argument is self-destructive.Have you read much of his work? As I implied earlier, he did have some major shortcomings on the whole, IMO… and now I wonder if that might be what you’re talking about. If you’re drawing connections just between the two quotes which I provided, then maybe it is simply that I am not getting what you mean.
You appear to be replying here to that single passage, which is not a complete argument at all. Besides that, I didn’t intend to obligate you with it, in any way. You expressed some interest in the tack that I had taken; I only meant to share some background. But even if that sentence of his were a failed attempt to prove premises, rather than a mere stating of some, I would think that you’d just call it “unconvincing.” Begging a question really is not the most self-defeating of fallacies. If your point is only that you needn’t listen to one who says not what you want to hear, then I think that you’re kind of begging the question yourself, but naturally that doesn’t prove that your ideas are false.

...You see, without SOME presumption, some emotional preconception, the scientific method could not function at all. Robotic objectivity devises no new hypotheses. Only fools disparage the passionate, imaginative approach: that is one great human virtue.

Well that's not true at all. Hypothesis are derived from simple observations, which is then tested through experiments and proven to be legitimate or illegitimate. There's no belief or emotional content needed; ideally, the scientific method is completely robotic. It's meant to create papers and ideas that can be tested and tried countless times with no differences in results.But in fact there are emotional value judgments involved; it is only when someone believes that there exists a problem to be solved that they apply scientific method. Hypotheses cannot be passively “derived” from observations, they must be intentionally dreamed up in hope of explaining the phenomena observed. Then they may be tried and tested, sure, but still we would get nowhere without some creativity from someone. (As, for example, when Hugh Everett proposed parallel universes to rationalize Schrödinger’s cat. To the school which still favors the Copenhagen interpretation, reality is extremely subjective, isn’t it? Yet how else can we account for those phenomena?)

Your claim that existence is a proven quality of “our” universe seems highly Cartesian to me; again you assume that the evidence of your own senses is the one unshakable standard. A Chinese proverb has that, “The man who doubts everything must even doubt his own uncertainty, and is so doomed to hopeless confusion.” Consider the depths to which such thinkers as David Hume have carried enquiry on human understanding. Start by claiming that the idea of God is a subjective illusion, and end in the realization that all self-perception is equally doubtable. To all appearances, YOU are just a segment of the world mechanism which happens somehow to imagine that it is able to have imagination. LOL, judge not lest ye be judged.

I go by the evidence that myself and others have collected, sorted and calculated. Of course the reality may be that we're completely wrong and our observations are useless, but until that day occurs, I stick to the facts that have been proven to the best of our ability. It takes no faith to believe in science; it takes faith to question it. If you are really so concerned with our inability to understand the world around us, then, by all means, try to convince yourself that I should question what I can prove. But reality isn't as subjective as you make it out to seem. Gravity is gravity. Wavelengths are wavelengths; they don't magically change properties. Sure, science could be wrong. But as far as we know, some simple properties will never be proven wrong.If no scientists had faith enough to question, science could not progress. That’s exactly my point. I think you’re being rather dogmatic about it. Gravity is a good example: who knows WHY it exists? Here’s one of the points for which Hume’s writings are particularly relevant.
...as far as we know, some simple properties will never be proven wrong.He was skeptic enough to question how we know that.
“… In vain do you pretend to have learned the nature of bodies from your past experience. Their secret nature, and consequently all their effects and influence, may change, without any change in their sensible qualities. This happens sometimes, and with regard to some objects. Why may it not happen always, and with regard to all objects? What logic, what process of argument secures you against this supposition? …
… it is not reasoning which engages us to suppose the past resembling the future, and to expect similar effects from causes which are, to appearance, similar. …”

~ David Hume
“Gravity is gravity.” Talk about a circular argument!
“…When anyone says that an unsupported body which is heavier than air necessarily falls to the ground, the necessity is not in nature, but in the rules of definition. If it did not fall to the ground, it would not fit what we mean by ‘heavier than air.’ …”

~ Alan Watts
What is subjective here is just specific ideas about what reality might be.
... Just because I'm cold about belief does not mean that I'm cold about humanity.*sigh* Well, I hear that all the time. I know that many other believers say that there’s a connection, and atheists never seem to be able to see why. “Believing in God doesn’t have anything to do with respecting human dignity!” all mutter … and then they turn right back to working on human cloning, and psychological profiling, and artificial intelligence, and so on and so on. :orely:

Regarding the alternate worlds theory, I’ve stated already that I have my own skepticisms, but I know that there are physicists who do active research with it.

I'm going to cut off the rest of your statement and stop you here for one reason: you're delving into the realm of string physics. The thing about string physics is that it isn't real science; instead of deriving hypothesis from observed measurements and testing them with experiments, it is deriving experiments to prove their guesses. I do not condone the raping of science, which is why I got out of the physics program at my school and entered the English program.I happen to believe that a lot of rape indeed is happening these days, but I’ve never seen science as the victim.
Ultimately, I suppose that you and I may just have to agree to disagree. Devising experiments to prove guesses (a.k.a. hypotheses) is precisely how science functions! I still think that it’s foolish to deny that, but you seem pretty committed, and as I’ve said, I have only so much time to spare. I absolutely hope that you’ll be more successful at appreciating poetry.

“… this command that we shall put a stopper on our heart, instincts, and courage and wait – acting of course meanwhile more or less as if religion were not true -- … seems to me the queerest idol ever manufactured in the philosophic cave. … Indeed we may wait if we will –- I hope you do not think that I am denying that, -- but if we do so, we do so at our own peril as much as if we believed. In either case we act, taking our life in our hands. No one of us ought to issue vetoes to the other, nor should we bandy words of abuse. We ought, on the contrary, delicately and profoundly to respect one another’s mental freedom: then only shall we bring about the intellectual republic; then only shall we have that spirit of inner tolerance without which all our outer tolerance is soulless, and which is empiricism’s glory; then only shall we live and let live, in speculative as well as in practical things. …”

~ “The Will to Believe”

SynysterSaint
05-26-2010, 11:32 PM
<_< We probably WILL go far off topic if we turn to formal debate on the merits/demerits of theism, but you sound so arrogant. People tend to have strong feelings on the subject of religion. Perhaps it makes you defensive when I contradict your assertions about your belief system; I hope you’ll understand that you’re the one who started it, from my point of view. All you say is how superior your way is… yet I know from my own experience that I don’t need to be converted.

Good, because I'm not trying to convert you; I'm simply stating my manner of beliefs about the universe: if it can't be proven or tested, then I don't believe it. I never claimed to know everything about the universe. In fact, I'm only know as much as science can prove. Just because I can mathematically or scientific prove my ideas about the universe, and therefore do not subscribe to other theories, certainly does not make me arrogant. I'm not closing off all areas of possibility; I love hearing new ideas! I'm simply saying that I don't believe them. That's all. I'm not claiming to be superior; I'm saying that I'm right so far as we can prove. It's completely possible for anyone else's ideas to be correct, it's just that we can't prove it at the moment. If another idea (such as multiverses) are proven to be correct, then I will believe them. If you have such a hard time with my concordance with science, then don't listen to what I say. If you think I'm on such a high throne, then don't respond to me. It's one thing to disagree with me and have a friendly debate; it's another thing entirely to start being hostile.


Certainly constant growth and continual learning are essential. It offends me to hear it said that, as a person of faith, I am incapable of those things. Right there is something which I think that you have a lot to learn about.

I'm not claiming that you aren't capable of intelligent growth and learning; I'm saying that, by definition of an unprovable belief, the beliefs cannot change for any reason other than you want them to. If you believe that aliens control all of us through remotes in our brains that are impossible to see, find, or measure, then there's nowhere for that idea to go; it can't be proven, and it cannot be changed by anything other than desire for it to change. You are stuck with that belief until you arbitrarily interchange it with something else. With science, beliefs about the universe are almost always guaranteed to change with new evidence.


I was thinking that you might expand upon your reasons for bringing him up.

Hawking is, for the most part, the final say in modern physics. Not to mention he has written a few books that very simply and easily outline the general laws of the universe as we know them.


Begging a question really is not the most self-defeating of fallacies. If your point is only that you needn’t listen to one who says not what you want to hear, then I think that you’re kind of begging the question yourself, but naturally that doesn’t prove that your ideas are false.

If an argument is begging the question, then it is neither a sound argument nor is it a valid argument. I'm not saying that it's wrong because it doesn't fit what I want to hear; I'm saying it's wrong because it's a bad argument.


But in fact there are emotional value judgments involved; it is only when someone believes that there exists a problem to be solved that they apply scientific method. Hypotheses cannot be passively “derived” from observations, they must be intentionally dreamed up in hope of explaining the phenomena observed. Then they may be tried and tested, sure, but still we would get nowhere without some creativity from someone. (As, for example, when Hugh Everett proposed parallel universes to rationalize Schrödinger’s cat. To the school which still favors the Copenhagen interpretation, reality is extremely subjective, isn’t it? Yet how else can we account for those phenomena

In a perfect environment, hypothesis are derived much as a robot would do: devoid of emotion and feelings. Creativity, realistically, has to be involved, but that doesn't prove that there is emotional judgments or value in it. Observation is the first step in the scientific method; so no, creating a hypothesis is not the first step. They do not try to imagine a solution to the problem until after the scientific method is begun. Granted, we're arguing semantics, but it does matter to the topic at hand, I suppose.


If no scientists had faith enough to question, science could not progress. That’s exactly my point. I think you’re being rather dogmatic about it. Gravity is a good example: who knows WHY it exists? Here’s one of the points for which Hume’s writings are particularly relevant.
...as far as we know, some simple properties will never be proven wrong.He was skeptic enough to question how we know that. “Gravity is gravity.” Talk about a circular argument! What is subjective here is just specific ideas about what reality might be.

What I'm saying here is that some basic scientific principles will never be proven wrong or change. I'm not using "Gravity is gravity" to prove gravity; of course that's the most basic circular argument one could provide! Instead, I'm saying that we're not suddenly going to turn around and say that gravity doesn't exist or that it doesn't accelerate objects at -9.81m/s^2 (on Earth). Same thing with the basic mass or charge of a proton. Of course we don't know exactly why these things exist yet, but we know that they do exist; the latter won't change any time soon, if ever.


*sigh* Well, I hear that all the time. I know that many other believers say that there’s a connection, and atheists never seem to be able to see why. “Believing in God doesn’t have anything to do with respecting human dignity!” all mutter … and then they turn right back to working on human cloning, and psychological profiling, and artificial intelligence, and so on and so on. :orely:

Respecting human dignity is entirely different than not being cold to humanity. I hate humans and I hate our species, but I certainly would never turn my back on humanity if I had the option to save it. Respecting human dignity is another story entirely. Human cloning, P.P., and A.I. do nothing to hurt humanity, but if you claim that they disrespect human dignity, then I'm one of the worst of the lot. I wish for expanses in all three of those fields!


I happen to believe that a lot of rape indeed is happening these days, but I’ve never seen science as the victim.
Ultimately, I suppose that you and I may just have to agree to disagree. Devising experiments to prove guesses (a.k.a. hypotheses) is precisely how science functions! I still think that it’s foolish to deny that, but you seem pretty committed, and as I’ve said, I have only so much time to spare.

Scientific Method:
Observation
Hypothesis
Experiment
Results/Theory

But you see, there's no observation in string physics! They're blindly creating experiments in the hopes of proving theories that they have no other evidence for. It completely goes against the founding principles of modern science. There is no agree or disagree here. If you cannot understand that much, then you really don't have enough time for this. I gave up a future of being a physicist because of the new wave of string physicists that are required at the large hadron colliders (where I wanted to work). So, please, don't belittle my knowledge of modern science or, for that matter, physics. I understand how the scientific method works, I understand how experiments are derived and performed, and I especially understand how badly it's being raped at the moment.

I'm not entirely sure why you keep assuming that I'm attacking your belief structure or claiming to be superior. I was simply explaining why I think the way I do and why I don't subscribe to other trains of thought. At this point, I'm on the defensive; you're the one who keeps pushing. Notice how all of my responses are either defenses of my original position (I stick to proven facts or mathematically sound arguments) or defending against your arguments. I'm not arguing against you or your beliefs; right now I'm backed into a corner and defending myself.

pathoftheturtle
05-28-2010, 01:11 PM
<_< We probably WILL go far off topic if we turn to formal debate on the merits/demerits of theism, but you sound so arrogant. People tend to have strong feelings on the subject of religion. Perhaps it makes you defensive when I contradict your assertions about your belief system; I hope you’ll understand that you’re the one who started it, from my point of view. All you say is how superior your way is… yet I know from my own experience that I don’t need to be converted.

Good, because I'm not trying to convert you; I'm simply stating my manner of beliefs about the universe: if it can't be proven or tested, then I don't believe it. I never claimed to know everything about the universe. In fact, I'm only know as much as science can prove. Just because I can mathematically or scientific prove my ideas about the universe, and therefore do not subscribe to other theories, certainly does not make me arrogant. I'm not closing off all areas of possibility; I love hearing new ideas! I'm simply saying that I don't believe them. That's all. I'm not claiming to be superior; I'm saying that I'm right so far as we can prove. It's completely possible for anyone else's ideas to be correct, it's just that we can't prove it at the moment. If another idea (such as multiverses) are proven to be correct, then I will believe them. If you have such a hard time with my concordance with science, then don't listen to what I say. If you think I'm on such a high throne, then don't respond to me. It's one thing to disagree with me and have a friendly debate; it's another thing entirely to start being hostile.I'm not becoming hostile. You’d know if I was. It’s one thing to openly oppose hyper-rationalism; it’s another thing entirely to start being psychopathic. Even if we don’t conform to cultural expectations, we may express ourselves in a free society.
You can believe whatever you like, and of course I don’t have to listen to you… but when you enter debate with my friends then I have every reason to attempt to counter your position, and if it is the testing system you’re promoting to which I should happen to be opposed, then I have every right to try to illustrate alternatives, even without meeting your requirements. Your case is just one big Catch-22. It is as if to say “It’s not that you’re automatically wrong to say that the Great Brain’s opinion is not the ultimate standard of truth, only that the point remains uncertain until you have convinced the Great Brain of it.” What I say is that there are realities more profound than can be expressed in mathematics. I know that you didn’t personally coin that phrase “so far as we can prove,” but just to further emphasize the point here: If you wished to be less presumptuous, you might just say that you are right so far as has yet been proven to your own satisfaction. Only by one definition is what is accepted by the scientific collective what “can” be proved.

Certainly constant growth and continual learning are essential. It offends me to hear it said that, as a person of faith, I am incapable of those things. Right there is something which I think that you have a lot to learn about.

I'm not claiming that you aren't capable of intelligent growth and learning; I'm saying that, by definition of an unprovable belief, the beliefs cannot change for any reason other than you want them to. If you believe that aliens control all of us through remotes in our brains that are impossible to see, find, or measure, then there's nowhere for that idea to go; it can't be proven, and it cannot be changed by anything other than desire for it to change. You are stuck with that belief until you arbitrarily interchange it with something else. With science, beliefs about the universe are almost always guaranteed to change with new evidence.It was Christianity and religion which you were talking about up until this. So are you now equating alien remotes with the God that I believe in?
If you can honestly say “no” then I really will apologize for taking this discussion personally.
I still think that you and Brice mischaracterized religion. This interpretation of “unprovability” is basically subjective, and regardless of their founding credo, so to speak, many scientists are no more flexible than anyone about their essential facts.
If an argument is begging the question, then it is neither a sound argument nor is it a valid argument. I'm not saying that it's wrong because it doesn't fit what I want to hear; I'm saying it's wrong because it's a bad argument.… But just because a statement is invalid as a formal argument does not necessarily imply that it has no validity in any other capacity. Would it be “wrong” for me to post some lyric or verse with no persuasive intent whatsoever? Again I tell you that you perceived aggression when there was none.
Since we’re arguing now, though, I’ll also repeat that more logic can be found in the context which I took that out of. If I must be blunt, I don’t believe that you can fairly judge unless you have indeed read all of that before. If so, I’d love to enter a debate in detail. (Although I’d suggest we do it @ TaRDT (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=914).) If not, I think you should explain the basis of your verdict or admit to jumping to conclusions.




But in fact there are emotional value judgments involved; it is only when someone believes that there exists a problem to be solved that they apply scientific method. Hypotheses cannot be passively “derived” from observations, they must be intentionally dreamed up in hope of explaining the phenomena observed. Then they may be tried and tested, sure, but still we would get nowhere without some creativity from someone. (As, for example, when Hugh Everett proposed parallel universes to rationalize Schrödinger’s cat. To the school which still favors the Copenhagen interpretation, reality is extremely subjective, isn’t it? Yet how else can we account for those phenomena

In a perfect environment, hypothesis are derived much as a robot would do: devoid of emotion and feelings. Creativity, realistically, has to be involved, but that doesn't prove that there is emotional judgments or value in it.By so defining what type of environment is “perfect” you have already made a value judgment. I’m sure you’ll say that it’s a justified one, not based upon mere human feeling, but I still don’t see the good.
Observation is the first step in the scientific method; so no, creating a hypothesis is not the first step. They do not try to imagine a solution to the problem until after the scientific method is begun. Granted, we're arguing semantics, but it does matter to the topic at hand, I suppose.Sure. The topic is belief. Should we be empowered to determine personally whether we each believe in other worlds, or is this the type of question properly deferred to organized social institutions, and if the latter, is their methodology consistent enough for all of us to be absolutely assured of the validity of their decision? :rolleyes:



If no scientists had faith enough to question, science could not progress. That’s exactly my point. I think you’re being rather dogmatic about it. Gravity is a good example: who knows WHY it exists? Here’s one of the points for which Hume’s writings are particularly relevant.
...as far as we know, some simple properties will never be proven wrong.He was skeptic enough to question how we know that. “Gravity is gravity.” Talk about a circular argument! What is subjective here is just specific ideas about what reality might be.

What I'm saying here is that some basic scientific principles will never be proven wrong or change. I'm not using "Gravity is gravity" to prove gravity; of course that's the most basic circular argument one could provide! Instead, I'm saying that we're not suddenly going to turn around and say that gravity doesn't exist or that it doesn't accelerate objects at -9.81m/s^2 (on Earth). Same thing with the basic mass or charge of a proton. Of course we don't know exactly why these things exist yet, but we know that they do exist; the latter won't change any time soon, if ever.And again, if we don't know exactly why these things exist yet (if ever), then how can you know that their existence will not change?
As for your circular argument, what I think is not that you were trying to prove gravity, but that you were trying to use the idea of gravity to prove that some ideas are objective truths immune to misconception. As I see it, however, the very question at stake here is whether putting something into words or numbers really can define it. Even now, it might perhaps be that the word “gravity” simply distracts us from seeing how effects are produced by the unified field. Or perhaps there’s something even stranger. Sure, you have admitted this in theory, but you demonstrate an adherence to established theory in practice which does indeed take faith.
Respecting human dignity is entirely different than not being cold to humanity. I hate humans and I hate our species, but I certainly would never turn my back on humanity if I had the option to save it. Respecting human dignity is another story entirely. I free associated somewhat. (I regard that as a virtue.) You’re right that there’s a clear distinction. So, could we agree that, “Few atheists would deliberately choose not to save humanity, but many do have little true respect for human dignity.” …? :smirk:
Human cloning, P.P., and A.I. do nothing to hurt humanity...Well, that’s not true at all. Just wait and see. :angry:
Already we are in the red with all the energy which has been wasted on such mad science, but right now the biggest trouble is the damn psychology. I deal with behaviorist bureaucrats every day: there is nothing which causes me more disgust or misery.
...there's no observation in string physics! They're blindly creating experiments in the hopes of proving theories that they have no other evidence for. It completely goes against the founding principles of modern science.The apparatus by which our civilization has long justified rape of the earth and “pre-modern” peoples? Aw, what a shame.
...There is no agree or disagree here. If you cannot understand that much, then you really don't have enough time for this. I gave up a future of being a physicist because of the new wave of string physicists that are required at the large hadron colliders (where I wanted to work). So, please, don't belittle my knowledge of modern science or, for that matter, physics. ... I understand just fine. I’m not belittling your knowledge. I am belittling that whole philosophy. “There is no agree or disagree here.” -- And you see no arrogance in yourselves. Knowledge of institutional structures is nothing that I particularly respect. I do respect the intelligence you’ve certainly evinced; I hope you put it to good use. I like to think that there is room within science for the spirit, but don’t get me wrong; if you do manage to exclude all that, then I will have no qualm about fighting from outside.
I'm not entirely sure why you keep assuming that I'm attacking your belief structure or claiming to be superior. I was simply explaining why I think the way I do and why I don't subscribe to other trains of thought. At this point, I'm on the defensive; you're the one who keeps pushing. Notice how all of my responses are either defenses of my original position (I stick to proven facts or mathematically sound arguments) or defending against your arguments. I'm not arguing against you or your beliefs; right now I'm backed into a corner and defending myself.What you don’t say, though, is “I am not against religion.” As I tried to explain in my last post, I’m apt to make you feel defensive so long as I have to defend that. I accept neither that it is obsolete nor that it should stay subordinate to popular epistemology.

SynysterSaint
05-28-2010, 06:44 PM
What you don’t say, though, is “I am not against religion.” As I tried to explain in my last post, I’m apt to make you feel defensive so long as I have to defend that. I accept neither that it is obsolete nor that it should stay subordinate to popular epistemology.

You brought up a few very good points in your post, but I feel like this is the only one that really needs to be addressed. Otherwise, we would just be rehashing what's already been said and, again, we would be arguing semantics (for the most part). Juxtapose those arguments with what you've brought up above, and I think it's obvious what the real argument is coming down to: yes, I absolutely despise any religious belief or dogma.

I would argue that it is horribly obsolete in the sense that religion has caused some of the largest set-backs in the history of the world. On top of that, religion does not give anything back to modern society; churches can't be taxed and religion does not help find solutions for important scientific, medical, or social issues (in fact, religion is used to perpetuate these issues).

However, I'm not asking you to defend your religious belief or explain why you believe the way you do; I'm certainly not telling you to throw away your belief. As I see it, religion of any kind has been nothing but a horrible curse. Those who are religious can forever beat their opinions and their ideas about its beauty against my head, but it won't do a bit of good. In my eyes, the only thing that matters are facts and the distinctly provable. Faith in the divine or in humanity has never been a benefit. Although, I understand that people who see the world as I do are a horrible minority and that we will forever be under the scrutiny of religious zealots (thankfully, you're much more level-headed than that, which is something I'm horribly appreciative of). No matter how I view religion or religious belief, don't take it personally; you may very well see something I don't. Just please understand that my position is not going to change. I have a cross of confusion tattoo on my right arm for that very reason. I harbor no ill-will towards you because of your religious belief, but I do harbor ill-will towards the religion itself.

Unfortunately, I cannot argue my lack of faith in anything other than science in any public forum or my "reasons" get questioned, whether I submit a post such as this one or not. Being an Atheist devotee of science is not viewed favorably in my corner (or, really, any corner) of the world.

Please, keep in mind: this post is not meant to offend but simply to answer your inquiry. If I have offended, I apologize.

pathoftheturtle
06-01-2010, 10:31 AM
Yeah, whatever their stand, people tend to have strong feelings on the subject. If I've seemed intolerant, I apologize. I enjoy talking with you. :)

We've only touched on knowledge and belief as a topic unto itself, but it might not benefit the thread to go on here with that, either. The important thing is just for everyone to be aware that there are a variety of philosophies.

SynysterSaint
06-01-2010, 10:46 PM
You didn't offend at all. You should know this by now, path: regardless of how heated an argument gets, I still consider all of you friends :) Just because we have an argument doesn't mean I can't take it with a grain of salt :lol:

I agree that we strayed a bit from the topic, but I did enjoy our conversation. I could never have an intellectual conversation this in-depth with people around here. So, if I should say anything, thank you!

Yaksha
12-08-2010, 10:40 AM
Alternate universes. Parallel earths. a multiverse. You an argue the how, why, when, where all of it all day and night and maybe never get a satisfied answer. Does anybody have any real tangible proof? Can we see hear it smell feel it. No. But just cause you cant see hear smell or feel something does not mean it aint there. Maybe there is maybe there aint. All I know is, i feel like sometimes this whole life, this world cant be the end of it all. To think this tiny planet is all of the life in the universe or multiverse if such a thing exist is beyond egotistical. It borders to blind stupidity. So yeah alternate universes. maybe

mystima
12-11-2010, 06:30 PM
I believe there are multi-verses or parallel universes just as much as i believe there is other life "out there" other wise it would just be a waste of space. the reason i believe is because we all chose to make decisions to do certain things whether it is to go to work 5 minutes earlier or 5 minutes to late or to go to work or not. The big question you have to ask is "what if?" What if I left for work 5 minutes earlier and missed a major car accident that would have made me late to work? What if I left 5 minutes later and I was in that car accident? In other words If i made one of those decisions in this "world" would I have made the same ones in the other also? Or would just turning left instead of right had made a difference in the world?

I also like the fact that observation is not relevant to what is actually happening. Just like Schrödinger's cat, until you observe the cat in the box, it is both alive and dead at the same time.

pathoftheturtle
12-13-2010, 04:23 PM
Yeah, but I hate the idea that what is actually happening is everything that possibly could happen. Not that my feelings determine the truth. I'm just saying, if it's true that all that could happen, must happen, it would mean that since there are a wide variety of ways that you could conceivably be physically tortured, there must be enough universes out there for you to have enough bodies that you can actually be mutilated in each and every one of those ways. Plus, if this is the nature of existence, that every possibility is inevitably realized regardless of what any of us think, then just what is the point?

SloTrans
01-09-2011, 12:32 AM
Anyone know where to find one of these thinnies? I need a vacation! Seriously though, I think there are an infinite number of realities limited only by all possible outcomes of all possible choices. Somewhere or when, I AM on vacation.

SloTrans
01-09-2011, 12:38 AM
Good point. But I imagine the possibilities would be so numerous as to almost be infinite.

LadyHitchhiker
01-09-2011, 10:55 PM
That's not all they do in the water! LOL

But I wrote that I believe in multiverses. For sure along the line of She-Oy but I'm too tired to explain more... Maybe later :)

The Gasherman
05-05-2011, 12:05 PM
I do not believe in them, but I do find the concept fascinating.

SOT, but I have pondered this question often.

When Ake says "there are other worlds than these", does the "these" mean the worlds in this universe as shown to Roland by Walter or does it mean the numerous multiplications of our own world?

pathoftheturtle
05-05-2011, 06:25 PM
Is Roland's world a multiplication of our own world? I think it's different, of a second really distinct type... and that Jake meant worlds other than those.

ETA >>> Nice to meet you. :) I don't truly believe in alternate universes either; welcome to the minority.

LadyHitchhiker
05-06-2011, 04:48 AM
I like the idea that there is another me out there somewhere who has had a much easier journey than my own... but unfortunately I don't know if that other me would have as good of friends as I do now, because of all that I have gone through. All that I have gone through has proven to me what friends I have, and which ones I don't, and has strengthened my bonds. For the ones who aren't my friends haven't stuck by me, and have just evaporated... perhaps into their own little worlds..

pathoftheturtle
05-06-2011, 05:05 AM
I might be okay with the idea of another me somewhere.... but not with an infinity of them. In every possible situation. That would be horrible.

The Gasherman
05-06-2011, 01:50 PM
Is Roland's world a multiplication of our own world? I think it's different, of a second really distinct type... and that Jake meant worlds other than those.

ETA >>> Nice to meet you. :) I don't truly believe in alternate universes either; welcome to the minority.

Well it often seems ambiguous throughout the books, but that only adds to the wonder. I was having a hard time phrasing that properly, but you got the idea. I guess no matter which way you fall on that I suppose Jake would have considered it a completely different world at that point in the story anyway. Thanks for the answer.

and nice to meet you also. I don't believe in much of anything that I don't know to be true. I just don't see the point.

pathoftheturtle
05-06-2011, 08:11 PM
Well, in the end, of course; if any of us like the concept doesn't matter to the question of whether it is true. There are plenty of awful things that I have to believe in in the real world. I've certainly acknowledged the other side, and talked here about reasons suggesting that I may be wrong. But I don't think really that these questions are exactly so complicated: everyone is entitled at least to venture a personal theory. There can be meaning enough in just the thinking itself.

LadyHitchhiker
05-07-2011, 04:38 AM
I might be okay with the idea of another me somewhere.... but not with an infinity of them. In every possible situation. That would be horrible.

That's a very valid point! :)

Jean
05-07-2011, 07:07 AM
that would, but, as we both once tried to prove to Ka-dan, infinyty does not necessarily mean "every possible"

pathoftheturtle
05-07-2011, 08:32 AM
Sure: it's only random infinite replication that's disturbing. Assuming overarching sensibility, it's not necessarily so bad. But the problem of a multiverse with no God is really not much different from that of no God and just a single universe.

Jean
05-07-2011, 08:58 AM
Precisely. Which makes additional worries, specific to multiverse, quite superfluous.

pathoftheturtle
05-07-2011, 10:51 AM
But isn't multiverse itself most likely superfluous, anyway?

Jean
05-07-2011, 11:12 AM
I don't know. It's the only thing that makes time-traveling possible, and metampsychosis redundant. I somehow like both these side-effects. It would also help explain those phenomena people (and bears) recounted in that .net thread I made, about the doors. I am very mistrustful of multiverse idea intellectually and - well, concepptually; spiritually - but emotionally it appeals to me immensely.

LadyHitchhiker
05-07-2011, 08:37 PM
Could you recap what you talked about on .net? It's been so long and I would like to know your view on the multiverses! :)

pathoftheturtle
05-09-2011, 06:08 AM
Oh, well, that's... huge... but, basically, we were arguing about whether the universes in the Stephen King multiverse could be of infinite number or not, and whether it would make reasonable sense to classify each individual universe as primarily aligned with Purpose or Random. I tried to show that this would beg the question of whether the multiverse as a whole is itself essentially Random or Purposive.
In fact, if each universe has similar limits and the nature of alternates is only that they vary according to possible arrangements of the same matter over time, then some incredibly large, finite number would be all that was possible before some precisely duplicated others. An endless variation could come from a supremely creative God, but that calls into question many other presumptions about the basic nature of those alternate universes.

LadyHitchhiker
05-10-2011, 04:04 PM
Wow... that was so scientific it turned me on.

Sorry, smarts are hot! :)

fbdownme787
05-04-2019, 10:28 PM
Date Joined : 19.01.2018
Post Date : 14.07.2018

Question:

please help me how to download videos from fb

Answer:

look on website below

fb downloader (https://fbconverter.com/) - facebook downloader

know thyself
05-30-2019, 09:40 AM
One way to prove there are other worlds is to travel todash and visit a few. Too bad we can't just go to the store and buy some of those handy Manni plumb bobs they use help channel energy to allow for this travel. Haha

https://pawnshop-ghosts.com/shop?olsPage=products%2Fplumb-bob-todash-style-decoration