No, I have a jet-fighter craft parked in my garage.
I don't know. Obviously there are other parameters still, that define their nature. Yet it would all seem to boil down to a game of numbers, with respect to their atomic weight.
AnotherSillyAlias
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,522
Looks like 2006 is starting out with some good laughs from the forum.
Excellent work Iacchus.
Elind
Philosopher
Originally Posted by Lynx2174 
:
if the atoms were truely precise and accurate, would not they all decay at the same time, instead of randomly decaying over a period of time?
As I said before, perhaps they are all in differening positions, so to speak. If two identical ball bearings are dropped on your head, but from different heights, you would swear they were different, until you looked at them, would you not?
:if the atoms were truely precise and accurate, would not they all decay at the same time, instead of randomly decaying over a period of time?
As I said before, perhaps they are all in differening positions, so to speak. If two identical ball bearings are dropped on your head, but from different heights, you would swear they were different, until you looked at them, would you not?
If that is what you want to think. This is getting into the old "How does a 747 assemble itself?" dialogue now. The word you are probably looking for is natural balance, lacking which, you would not exist. There is nothing in nature to suggest intention, either in design or in mechanism, and even if there was, it would be confounding against the countless other things that suggest otherwise. This doesn't mean that hidden aspects of nature don't exist and can apply to human nature in profound ways - I personally think the natural world in this universe has many hidden secrets - but as a designed system simply does not work out.
Are you suggesting that there is a general sense of uniformity overall then? ... Just that it can be "tweaked" from other sources?
Last edited:
Yes, but in order for something to come into being, there must be rules governing its coming into being, even the Big Bang. Therefore, there could never have been a time when there were not rules set in place. Also, since it suggests nothing could be made up on the fly, out of bounds of the rules of its contingency, that is, there is not a single rule governing the material world (as we know it) that did not exist prior to the Big Bang. And what else could this tell us, except that the whole thing was scripted beforehand? And, what better means to employ such a script, a grand tapestry if you will, than through some sort of matrix or hologram? Whereas the notion of a uniform atomic grid would seem to support this.
Last edited:
Well, I think it's reasonable to assume that laws and forces of nature have, nay, require opposite characteristics - even though it may never be possible to study that by implication. Effect preceeding cause is, of course, the definition of magic. The laws of nature break down at the very minute and macro levels (singularities), but even assuming science agrees it is indeed possible to pull a rabbit out of your hat from nowhere, how would you?
Well, the problem with the big bang theory is similer to the problem with God - an infinite regression. If the universe and the laws of physics only came into existence at a certain point of time, what conditions existed beforehand, and before those (or does the universe alternate like that forever)? The big bang also implies:
1) Cause preceeds effect "outside" the realm of relativistic phenomena.
2) Time exists in isolated form (otherwise how could that event occur?).
3) Space and matter exist in equal and opposite isolated form themselves, but a third variable exists, outside of matter and space, which initiated instability and the "bang".
Last edited:
Elind
Philosopher
I may be getting in over my head here, but I thought I was suggesting that there is a general sense of NONE uniformity, and that is what sometimes tweaks what you think is uniformity.
Well, in order to have a uniform grid, you have to have something to generate that grid. Perhaps this entails the non-uniform elements you are referring to here?
Elind
Philosopher
God
?I think every time he pisses the spray causes protons to decay here and there.
Let's face it, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. I'm just here waiting for you to say the same.
No. You are quite simply wrong. You are, in addition, employing circular reasoning.
Bald assertion and circular reasoning. You are, once again, quite simply wrong.
Utterly meaningless. Circular once again, and your conclusions do not follow from your premises.
The most parsimonious explanation? That you have no [rule8] clue what you are talking about.
You really liked that movie, but it was just a movie. You should learn about what real holograms entail.
No. You are quite simply wrong. None of what you have said can be seen as supporting this conclusion. None of it. For the Nth time, Iacchus, educate yourself about circular reasoning. You just look like a fool.
Or, let's say I did know what I was talking about. How would you know?God
I think every time he pisses the spray causes protons to decay here and there.
Let's face it, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. I'm just here waiting for you to say the same.
No, there is something that exists on the other side of matter that is responsible for its structure. That's about all I can tell you.
AnotherSillyAlias
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,522
Indeed, how would anyone? Including yourself?
We know because we are able to match what others say to our own experience, in carefully controlled conditions. Intersubjective validity.
We don't know if you know what you are talking about, because your posting history is internally inconsistent. When you disagree with yourself, how is anyone to know whether you know what you are talking about?
Your first task is to be logical and consistent. Your second is to do this while agreeing with the observed evidence. Your third task is to express this clearly.
Good luck.
Elind
Philosopher
It's like that science thing. Partly a matter of listening to what others say, then forming a conclusion based on the evidence.
I didn't say I disagreed with everything you've ever said.bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Please don't dump on Iacchus too much for underlining. We've been working hard at breaking him of the habit of using quotation marks for emphasis, and I'd hate to see him backslide. Leave him this bit of grammatical methadone.