• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A "Before" the Big Bang?

Tricky said:
To dreeeeeeeam, the impossible dreeeeeeam....

I agree that it is newcomers like Leroy, .13., and kmortis that make the effort worthwhile. I have heard it said that unless you can explain something to a six-year-old child, you really don't understand it. Iacchus plays the part admirably, so I guess we owe him a bit of gratitude.
Click to expand...


I'm useful, I'm useful...yeah!!! :clap: :p

Oh, and to Mercutio; remember sometimes, the windmills, they might be giants....not in this case, of course, but sometimes.
 
Last edited:
Mercutio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mercutio,
You left out "flat out refused to explain".
 
Iacchus said:
Which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard ... unless of course, it was being generated by some sort of simulation, as I have suggested.
Click to expand...
The imperfection is yours.

Prove that there is a spiritual world.

Then prove that our universe is expanding into it.
 
Iacchus said:
Which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard ... unless of course, it was being generated by some sort of simulation, as I have suggested.
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't understood the balloon analogy completely. Try it out with a balloon. And consider only the two-dimensional surface when you inflate. Ignore the inside and outside, they do not exist for the purposes of this demonstration. And then consider wheter the two-dimensional surface is expanding to anything or just getting bigger. Seriously, try it out with a balloon.
 
.13. said:
You obviously haven't understood the balloon analogy completely. Try it out with a balloon. And consider only the two-dimensional surface when you inflate. Ignore the inside and outside, they do not exist for the purposes of this demonstration. And then consider wheter the two-dimensional surface is expanding to anything or just getting bigger. Seriously, try it out with a balloon.
Click to expand...

[giggle] Wait, Iacchus...go off and [giggle] do something [guffah] PRACTICAL??? :dl: Oh, .13., you slay me, really you do....
 
Does the analogy work with a flat piece of paper being streched? Perhaps Iacchus' problem is with the spherical nature of a balloon.
 
.13. said:
You obviously haven't understood the balloon analogy completely. Try it out with a balloon. And consider only the two-dimensional surface when you inflate. Ignore the inside and outside, they do not exist for the purposes of this demonstration. And then consider wheter the two-dimensional surface is expanding to anything or just getting bigger. Seriously, try it out with a balloon.
Click to expand...
Yes, everything ends on the inside of the simulation. There would in fact be no outside to it ... I believe.
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, everything ends on the inside of the simulation. There would in fact be no outside to it ... I believe.
Click to expand...
There is no inside or outside. Where are still talking about the two-dimensional surface.

You are still thinking that the surface occupies space in three-dimensional universe. But in this analogy the surface is the universe
 
.13. said:
There is no inside or outside. Where are still talking about the two-dimensional surface.

You are still thinking that the surface occupies space in three-dimensional universe. But in this analogy the surface is the universe
Click to expand...

Iacchus, have you ever read Flatland? It really helps with picturing only two dimensions.
 
.13. said:
There is no inside or outside. Where are still talking about the two-dimensional surface.

You are still thinking that the surface occupies space in three-dimensional universe. But in this analogy the surface is the universe
Click to expand...
And what if it were textured? No, I am not speaking of the balloon anymore. I am speaking of this three dimensional holograph image (or whatever) that doesn't extend itself beyond what it perceives as "real" from the inside. That in fact there is no other or, "out" side to it. Of course there is, if generated from within "another" world but, it wouldn't be a part of the holograph then.
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Iacchus said:
Which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard ... unless of course, it was being generated by some sort of simulation, as I have suggested.
Click to expand...
Actually, Iacchus, a holograph, simulation, or whatever, is a something, not a nothing. You seem perfectly willing to be open-minded to believe things which are clearly not so, but unwilling or unable to see that nothing is...nothing.

An empty box, Iacchus, is not a box full of nothing. It is a box full of 3-dimensional space. "Nothing" is not space. It is not "really, really small" or "really, really empty" or anything of the sort. It is nothing. If it was really really small, it would be something. If it was empty, it would be something. If it is something, it is part of everything, and part of the universe.

It would appear, Iacchus, that your biggest problem in this particular thread is that you cannot conceive of "nothing".
 
Iacchus said:
And what if it were textured? No, I am not speaking of the balloon anymore. I am speaking of this three dimensional holograph image (or whatever) that doesn't extend itself beyond what it perceives as "real" from the inside. That in fact there is no other or, "out" side to it. Of course there is, if generated from within "another" world but, it wouldn't be a part of the holograph then.
Click to expand...
You are not trying to understand. You are trying to argue before you understand, which is a miserable task. Understand first. Then argue.
 
Mercutio said:
You are not trying to understand. You are trying to argue before you understand, which is a miserable task. Understand first. Then argue.
Click to expand...
I understand that there is a God and a spiritual world. What's your problem?
 
.13. said:
There is no inside or outside. Where are still talking about the two-dimensional surface.

You are still thinking that the surface occupies space in three-dimensional universe. But in this analogy the surface is the universe
Click to expand...
Good analogy, 13, but apparently still above Iacchus' head. Okay, try this one.

Think of a fireworks display. Now think of one of those displays that is an expanding sphere (I think they call them "chrysanthemums"). The shell explodes and the "fireworks" are sent flying outward. Now consider that the fireworks are the universe. There are no fireworks inside the shell of the chrysanthemum. There are no fireworks outside the shell of the chrysanthemum. Now substitute "universe" for fireworks. The universe is the shell. There is no universe inside the shell. There is no universe outside the shell.
 
Iacchus said:
I understand that there is a God and a spiritual world. What's your problem?
Click to expand...

If it stopped there, there would be no problem. It's when you then go on to say that the material world is a sub-set, that god created(designed whathaveyou) the universe, that these beliefs have any possible practical use does a problem arise; as you refuse to give any evidence to their existance outside of your imagination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom