A "Before" the Big Bang?

[TobiasTheViking]

I take it you didn't see the movie, The Matrix?

Yes i have, i fail to see your point.

They used a hologram a few times throughout those movies.. but it was never the main point of the movies, never really something that was important, just a way of representing something.

 

[Tricky]

The surface area is only imaginary, because there is no thickness to it. Even if it was only half a proton thick, it would still be a third dimension.

By George, I think he's got it! It is a mathematical representation of three dimensions!

Most drawings are two dimensional representations of three-dimensional reality. Movies, TV, seeing with one eye closed etc. are all ways that you can see only two dimensions, but visualize a third.

The globe of the world is probably the best example of what .13. is trying to tell you. How do you think they make globes? They take a two dimensional piece of paper (assuming the thickness is negligable), put a map on it, and paste it to a globe. The map is still only two dimensional, but it is wrapped around a three dimensional object. If you peeled the paper off and flattened it, it would be essentially a two-dimensional map again.

Now, visualize the same thing but instead of a sheet of paper around a globe, imagine the skin of a balloon. The surface of the balloon approximates two-dimensionaliity, since the thickness is negligible.

The process is probably similar with a baffoon.

Quick, while you've got that model in your head, imagine the expanding universe. You are not considering the air inside the balloon or the air outside the baloon, but only the two-dimensional representation of the skin of the balloon itself.

Whew!

Edited to add another example.
Think of how positions are located on a map of the earth. They use latitude and longitude. That is what your GPS shows you. Sure, there is elevation, but for the purpose of location, lat and long are enough. It is a two-dimensional co-ordinate system for the surface of a sphere.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Tricky: Haha, neither of us can spell balloon, when i made the argument you just made on, i wrote ballon, and now you wrote baffoon. Sorry if i'm giggling like a 13 year old. but. Hehe

 

[Iacchus]

Yes i have, i fail to see your point.

They used a hologram a few times throughout those movies.. but it was never the main point of the movies, never really something that was important, just a way of representing something.

What, do you mean the part about man versus machines? being the main point that is. Or, are you saying the Matrix itself was not "generated" by a hologram? I'm not sure what you're talking about here?

 

[TobiasTheViking]

What, do you mean the part about man versus machines being the main point? Or, are you saying the Matrix itself was not "generated" by a hologram? I'm not sure what you're talking about here?

The matrix was not generated by a hologram.

When you see that little cgi picture of some drone hunting them(before they fire the EMP), that is a hologram.

In starwars when you see her say "help me obiwan kenobi, you are my only hope" that is a hologram.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

http://runevision.com/show.asp?id=51

That representation of earth, is a hologram.

 

[Tricky]

Tricky: Haha, neither of us can spell balloon, when i made the argument you just made on, i wrote ballon, and now you wrote baffoon. Sorry if i'm giggling like a 13 year old. but. Hehe

LOL. Yeah, I noticed that too and fixed it. When I make fun of someone's spelling (like I did when Iacchus called me a baffoon), it is light-hearted. Most people can't spell that well when typing. Exhibit A is Upchurch, one of the most brilliant people on these boards, but can't spell for beans.

Glad I gave you a gigle.

Edited for "duh".
Oh, you were talking about "baffoon". That's a reference to when Iacchus tried to call me a buffoon earlier, but misspelled it. Kmortis told me jocularly that a baffoon was a balloon in the shape of a buffalo. It's a running joke.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

LOL. Yeah, I noticed that too and fixed it. When I make fun of someone's spelling (like I did when Iacchus called me a baffoon), it is light-hearted. Most people can't spell that well when typing. Exhibit A is Upchurch, one of the most brilliant people on these boards, but can't spell for beans.

Glad I gave you a gigle.

Actually, i was just mad you stole my post, and i wanted to get even

Nah, kidding of course.

Or am i.


Dum dum dum duuum

Sincerely
Tobias

 

[Iacchus]

By George, I think he's got it! It is a mathematical representation of three dimensions!

No, in order for the balloon analogy to work, you would have to speak of the sufrace area on the inside of the balloon, not the outside.

 

[Iacchus]

The matrix was not generated by a hologram.

When you see that little cgi picture of some drone hunting them(before they fire the EMP), that is a hologram.

In starwars when you see her say "help me obiwan kenobi, you are my only hope" that is a hologram.

And, are you sure this is not just a "simple" holographic image generated within the greater holographic field of the Matrix? Or, maybe I misunderstood what was generating the Matrix? While here, it brings to mind the holodeck on Star Trek, The Next Generation. Anyway, this is what I meant when I said the Universe may have been generated by a hologram.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

And, are you sure this is not just "simple" holographic image generated within the greater holographic field of the Matrix? Or, maybe I misunderstood what was generating the Matrix? However, it also brings to mind the holodeck on Star Trek, The Next Generation. Anyway, this is meant when I said maybe the Universe was one big hologram.

The Matrix wasn't a hologram. The Matrix was a dream enforced upon via electrodes in our brain. Forced halucination. Controlled dream.

Oh, and if you are trying to say that the universe is just a computer simulation. Then we are back at square one.

 

[Mercutio]

No, in order for the balloon analogy to work, you would have to speak of the sufrace area on the inside of the balloon, not the outside.

It works exactly the same with either the inner or outer surface, as long as you are speaking of just the two-dimensional surface, rather than the material it is made of.

As for holograms, the only similarity between this example and holograms is that you demonstrate no understanding of either.

 

[Iacchus]

The Matrix wasn't a hologram. The Matrix was a dream enforced upon via electrodes in our brain. Forced halucination. Controlled dream.

Well, I must have missed that part then. Were these electrodes something that they implanted in everyone's brain? Now, I'm not referring to whatever the heck they did to any of the main characters -- specifically Neo -- but, to all the rest of the people who didn't know they were living in the matrix?

Oh, and if you are trying to say that the universe is just a computer simulation. Then we are back at square one.

Why not? ... Well, some sort of simulation anyway.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Well, I must have missed that part then. Were these electrodes something that they implanted in everyone's brain? Now, I'm not referring to whatever the heck they did to any of the main characters -- specifically Neo -- but, to all the rest of the people who didn't know they were living in the matrix?

Why not? ... Well, some sort of simulation anyway.

A machine pulled a big rod out of Neo's head in the first movie. Watch it again and see them implant a lot of electrodes and stuff in the kids.


Because then we have the same question, just with the universe the computer that simulates us is in.

Sure, we COULD be in a simulation, there is no way to prove it one way or the other. But if we are, then we have to figure out what univsere the computer that simulates our universe, is in.

The point is completely and utterly moot.

Anyways, ima go sleep now, someone else can take over from here.

 

[Iacchus]

Sure, we COULD be in a simulation, there is no way to prove it one way or the other. But if we are, then we have to figure out what univsere the computer that simulates our universe, is in.

Yes, and as I have tried to explain more than once, the material world is but a subset of the spiritual world.

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, and as I have tried to explain more than once, the material world is but a subset of the spiritual world.

No. You have never tried to explain this. You have asserted it repeatedly, but have never explained it. Even when people have asked for specifics, you have dodged, misdirected, fought tooth and nail to avoid being nailed down to some position.

Asserting is the easy part.

Explaining is the worthwhile part. And you have not gotten there yet.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Yes, and as I have tried to explain more than once, the material world is but a subset of the spiritual world.

That is not a proof.

We can't prove that the material world isn't a subset of the spiritual world. And it isn't up to us to prove that.

You make that claim, your proove it.

I can't prove you are wrong. But then again, i can't prove that Santa doesn't exist. Or that reindeer can't fly.

It is impossible to prove such a negative.

You prove to me that Santa do exist. You prove to me that reindeer can fly. And you prove to me that the material world is a subset of a spiritual world.

Granted, i don't have any interest in your proving the santa or reindeer thing.

Just prove to me that the material world is a subset of the spiritual world.

First step on that endeavour. Prove to me that there IS a spiritual world.

I'm eagearly awaiting your proof.

 

[Iacchus]

No. You have never tried to explain this. You have asserted it repeatedly, but have never explained it. Even when people have asked for specifics, you have dodged, misdirected, fought tooth and nail to avoid being nailed down to some position.

Asserting is the easy part.

Explaining is the worthwhile part. And you have not gotten there yet.

So, if we have what appears to be nothing outside of what the Universe is expanding into, then what is it? I would be most willing to call it nothing if, in fact the Universe was being generated by some sort of simulation or, holograph or, whatever.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

So, if we have what appears to be nothing outside of what the Universe is expanding into, then what do we call it? I would be most willing to call it nothing if, in fact the Universe was being generated by some sort of simulation or, holograph or, whatever.

This entire thread have been about explaining to you that the universe doens't have to expand into anything.

It doesn't expand into anything, it just gets bigger...

 

[.13.]

No, in order for the balloon analogy to work, you would have to speak of the sufrace area on the inside of the balloon, not the outside.

It works exactly the same with either the inner or outer surface, as long as you are speaking of just the two-dimensional surface, rather than the material it is made of.

As for holograms, the only similarity between this example and holograms is that you demonstrate no understanding of either.

First remember my earlier post.

If it helps go to the store and buy some balloons. Then draw few dots on it as galaxies and start blowing. Observe.

Now take the balloon you used earlier and turn it inside out. Inflate and observe.