[Psudo]

Yes, PA9, I'm arguing that something (the universe) cannot both be created and spontaneously come into being. It cannot both have and not have a creating cause. It cannot be both finite in duration and an eternal cycle of crunch and bang. The definitions of these terms are mutually exclusive.

[PluggyRug]

Psudo wrote:

Yes, PA9, I'm arguing that something (the universe) cannot both be created and spontaneously come into being. It cannot both have and not have a creating cause. It cannot be both finite in duration and an eternal cycle of crunch and bang. The definitions of these terms are mutually exclusive.

In math dividing by zero give you infinity.

In physics dividing by zero gives you another world of possible existences. That is, if you believe that nothing can be finite or infinite.

Like what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object. The preceding phrase can be construed as nothing more than bad grammar.

[raydan]

How DO they put the caramel in the Caramilk bar?

[Psudo]

PluggyRug wrote:

In math dividing by zero give you infinity. Also "nothing can be finite" is clearly false.

In physics dividing by zero gives you another world of possible existences. That is, if you believe that nothing can be finite or infinite.

In computer science, you (depending on language) get an error that might crash the program.

But all of these are abstract models that imitate reality, complex metaphors we use to explain the universe to ourselves. They are not the universe itself. The universe has to actually be some way. One particular way: real. That means no self-contradiction.

The fact that there are gaps in our understanding does not disprove the parts we do know.

[ShepherdsDog]

sure it does...we thought that the speed of light was a constant, and before we thought the speed of sound couldn't be broken. All of this was based on the current level of science at the time proving, what we think we have down pat is really wrong because it's based on an incomplete understanding.

[Lemmy]

[Psudo]

The speed of light is a constant. One disputed experiment does not determine anything until it can be verified and repeated. If and when it is verified, it will have changed our understanding of the speed of light and related concepts. But it won't change our understanding of, say, biological reproduction or encryption. Or basic logic, like non-contradiction.

We thought the speed of sound couldn't be broken as a practical concern. We already knew light and bullets and bullwhips moved faster than sound, so we knew it was possible. It just took us a while to figure out how to accomplish manned, controlled flight at that speed. The first supersonic flight didn't revolutionize science, it was a landmark of technology.

[Tricks]

Psudo wrote:

Both theories are valid, but they can't both be true at once. Yes?

Yes, they can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

[Tricks]

Also, I love threads like these for the sole reason Caleb chimes in, I always learn something.

[Psudo]

Shrodinger made up his cat-in-a-box metaphor to criticize the absurdity of the superposition concept. If you open the box, you can clearly see whether the cat is alive or dead. It is never literally in a state of superposition; it is only your ignorance of it's state that projects that illusion. Your own source, Tricks, states as much when it says "Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum." It also offers these quotes defending my view:

Shrodinger: "There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks."
Einstein: "one cannot get around the assumption of reality"
and "Niels Bohr, never had in mind the observer-induced collapse of the wave function, so that Schrödinger's Cat did not pose any riddle to him. The cat would be either dead or alive long before the box is opened by a conscious observer."

So... thanks?

[Tricks]

Psudo wrote:

Shrodinger made up his cat-in-a-box metaphor to criticize the absurdity of the superposition concept. If you open the box, you can clearly see whether the cat is alive or dead. It is never literally in a state of superposition; it is only your ignorance of it's state that projects that illusion. Your own source, Tricks, states as much when it says "Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum." It also offers these quotes defending my view:

Shrodinger: "There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks."
Einstein: "one cannot get around the assumption of reality"
and "Niels Bohr, never had in mind the observer-induced collapse of the wave function, so that Schrödinger's Cat did not pose any riddle to him. The cat would be either dead or alive long before the box is opened by a conscious observer."

So... thanks?

You missed my point. If their are two completely valid theories, both of which seemingly equally likely, then it is reasonable to say neither is false, until we know one is. I also like your selective quoting.

Quote:

The most commonly held interpretation of quantum mechanics is the Copenhagen interpretation. In the Copenhagen interpretation, a system stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when an observation takes place.

Bear in mind this was also an oversimplified answer, and was more a joke then anything. Since it's talking about superpositions, and not theories of the universe's creation. However as I said, if neither has been disproved, it's valid to hold them both as possibly true.

[andyt]

Psudo wrote:

Yes, PA9, I'm arguing that something (the universe) cannot both be created and spontaneously come into being. It cannot both have and not have a creating cause. It cannot be both finite in duration and an eternal cycle of crunch and bang. The definitions of these terms are mutually exclusive.

How are they mutually exclusive? You're not making sense here. It's entirely possible the universe as we know it is finite in time and then disappears. It appeared out of nothing and can return to nothing. What happens after that, who knows, but if it happened once, who's to say it can't happen an infinite number of times? If that is true, the universe is essentially infinite, but the one we know isn't. Next time may be completely different. None of it requires a creator. If it did, the question would have to be who created the creator.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Yes, PA9, I'm arguing that something (the universe) cannot both be created and spontaneously come into being. It cannot both have and not have a creating cause. It cannot be both finite in duration and an eternal cycle of crunch and bang. The definitions of these terms are mutually exclusive.

How are they mutually exclusive? You're not making sense here. It's entirely possible the universe as we know it is finite in time and then disappears. It appeared out of nothing and can return to nothing. What happens after that, who knows, but if it happened once, who's to say it can't happen an infinite number of times? If that is true, the universe is essentially infinite, but the one we know isn't. Next time may be completely different. None of it requires a creator. If it did, the question would have to be who created the creator.

The same question would apply for the original material that "spontaneously" generated the (first) Big Bang.

[andyt]

Supposedly physics supports that there was no material - there was nothing at all, except I believe gravity. You gotta have that gravity. So I guess there had to have been gravitrons, but since we haven't even found them yet, who knows.

There are physicists who believe that consciousness creates matter. I like that one, it reconciles a form of God with a material universe. Of course nobody can say what consciousness is, but then nobody can say what God is unless they are very very presumptuous.

[raydan]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

andyt wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Yes, PA9, I'm arguing that something (the universe) cannot both be created and spontaneously come into being. It cannot both have and not have a creating cause. It cannot be both finite in duration and an eternal cycle of crunch and bang. The definitions of these terms are mutually exclusive.

How are they mutually exclusive? You're not making sense here. It's entirely possible the universe as we know it is finite in time and then disappears. It appeared out of nothing and can return to nothing. What happens after that, who knows, but if it happened once, who's to say it can't happen an infinite number of times? If that is true, the universe is essentially infinite, but the one we know isn't. Next time may be completely different. None of it requires a creator. If it did, the question would have to be who created the creator.

The same question would apply for the original material that "spontaneously" generated the (first) Big Bang.

Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed.

Kinda makes you think that everything was there, and that it has ALWAYS been there.
If you don't believe in infinity, you almost have to believe in a higher power.