It's strictly a matter of assessing whether we have a point of origin or not.
Yes, and if everything is scripted beforehand, that means everything is scripted beforehand. Which tells us that whatever it is that exists on the other side of matter knows no bounds ... at least with respect to time and space anyway.
A) First sentence: your "if" premise is not supported by evidence, and due to its circularity, cannot be supported by logic.
B) Second sentence: does not follow from first sentence, despite the "which tells us" structure. In addition, is (and must be, by any definition of time and space) internally inconsistent. You would claim that X (which exists "on the other side of matter", a phrase which--while undefined--implies that it is beyond your capacity to be aware of it at all) "knows no bounds" (which implies that your limited human capacity to perceive it--even if it were on this side of matter
is inadequate), even though your very act of describing it implies that you have established its bounds.C) You need another sticky for your computer screen.
D) You are quite simply wrong.
It's an all or nothing proposition ... meaning, if you can conclude that there was never time when there was ever nothing. Also, that the only things that change and evolve (scripted beforehand that is) exist on this side of matter.A) First sentence: your "if" premise is not supported by evidence, and due to its circularity, cannot be supported by logic.
B) Second sentence: does not follow from first sentence, despite the "which tells us" structure. In addition, is (and must be, by any definition of time and space) internally inconsistent. You would claim that X (which exists "on the other side of matter", a phrase which--while undefined--implies that it is beyond your capacity to be aware of it at all) "knows no bounds" (which implies that your limited human capacity to perceive it--even if it were on this side of matter
Is this even a complete sentence?
Your "if's" are piling up, Iacchus. Why not just collect them all and trade them in for "if my dreams come true". It's pretty much the same thing.
I keep waiting for one of these scripts you speak of to show itself. After all, you wouldn't be simply inferring them after the fact, circularly...certainly not after having been corrected about that so many times.
Do you need more stickies on your computer?
And of course no such points (indicative to space that is) existed before the creation of time and space now did they? And of course if we're ready to suggest that time didn't exist before the Big Bang, or space -- obviously -- then what the hell was there?
Last edited:
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
NOTHING!
Or maybe Godalmighty, if that makes you comfy. But whatever it was, you can guaran-ruleating-tee that if there was no time, then there was no time, get it? There's no before there! You can't have a time without time! Get it? Time didn't exist before anything because "before" is a time. A cannot be not-A. Sane, orderly thought begins here. A cannot be not-A. There simply never was a time when time wasn't.
Infinity is really hard to bite into. I remember when I was about 5 years old, I started wondering about how far out space went, and someone in my family told me that the universe was infinite, and explained what that meant. I immediately asked what was outside it. Infinity is a fine word to say, but a very hard one really to understand. Although I couldn't have put it into words, I seem to have known the difference between the possible and the theoretical. I knew it was too far out ever to reach the end, but I really could never quite get my visual little 5-year-old mind wrapped around the idea of a space that is not bounded. Having recently crossed the ocean by ship, I may have had the advantage over some of my contemporaries in understanding finite vastness. I couldn't quite let go of the idea of infinity as just hugely larger vastness. I kept visualizing the edge of the universe as a big, impenetrable muddy cliff at the edge of the sea-like Universe. It's probably as good a way to visualize it as any. But it isn't, you know. At some point, you grow up and realize it just isn't!
I doubt it very much (although the article is fascinating--thanks for linking it!); his concept of a hologram is that it is literally three-dimensional, rather than a two-dimensional object giving rise to the illusion of three dimensions.
Iacchus's "hologram theory" owes more to the matrix than to theoretical physics.
But...wow, what an article!
"OUR INNATE PERCEPTION that the world is three-dimensional could be an extraordinary illusion."
Just think, gentlemen, we might actually exist as a non-local singularity crammed next to Pat Roberston. All together now, one..two..three!
"WOooooO!"
Last edited:
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
That is indeed a very interesting article, especially for one who has dabbled a bit with William James (flux of pure experience, anyone?). I'm guessing that this is not Iacchus's initial idea, but let's see what he does with it.
No, a two-dimensional object giving rise to what we experience as three dimensions.
In part, yes. But I have given a lot more thought to this outside of the fact that I've only seen the movie once.
Here's another interesting article.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Maybe god, who knows? But whatever it was or is it is beyond reason and beyond language to explain. Before there was anything there cannot have been something, unless you redefine one or both of the words. Whatever might have given rise to the universe cannot be thought of as ontologically in the same category as anything else, or you've just got an older universe.
This seems to be a stumbling block for Iacchus, who insists on timeless duration and spaceless locality.
I changed my mind. Nothing.
And if "it" gave creation to reason and language, why not?
It's important to keep in mind also, that the big bang implies something being the result of nothing. A second perplexing implication is the big bang should have resulted in greater disorder, like all explosions, but instead order, information, and organisms occured instead. Not sure if this is what he's basing his ideas on though.
Um...no.
You might want to search Iacchus's past threads. This has been addressed many times; perhaps that is why the level of interest in it was so low that you were forced to bump it. "Something from nothing" is a strawman, and your idea of entropy is rather near-sighted.
Getting a full picture of what he's trying to say is not in my interest, until he is more concise anyway. As to something from nothing being a strawman, It is in any argument, but it's also a highly debated implication of the big bang theory. By the way, I prefer Kelly Osbourne's idea of entropy.