I would say that the universe is space and time, not that it exists outside of it, but I get your point. I misunderstood your earlier post, I fear.
I would say that the universe is space and time, not that it exists outside of it, but I get your point. I misunderstood your earlier post, I fear.
Actually only one answer really (that contains both existence and sentience wrapped inside) which, is the foundation for everything else. And no Taffer, I'm afraid that doesn't entail absolute nothingness. Or, if by some impossible chance it does (based upon the probability of zero of course), then what does this tell us, except that anything is possible. And, you might as well get used to the fact (funny, eh?), that God could have very easily dunnit.
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
As could the FSM, or the Great Green Arkleseizure, or any one of an infinite number of hypothetical entities.Or, if by some impossible chance it does (based upon the probability of zero of course), then what does this tell us, except that anything is possible. And, you might as well get used to the fact (funny, eh?), that God could have very easily dunnit.
The question is: do you have any evidence that any of these entities exists, and if so, do you have any evidence that they had anything to do with the origin of the universe?
Not even the laws of physics? This is why we call them laws isn't it, because they're set up in such a way as to direct and guide our actions? Can you imagine anything functional, let alone the Universe existing without them?
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
The "laws of physics" do not "guide" anything; they are a man-made set of rules that attempt to describe how things behave.
They are in fact a prescription for disaster if you do not heed their significance.
Yes, then perhaps whatever it is is all of the above, and infinitely more.
Oh, yes we do. The whole Universe is chock full of evidence that the impossible exists.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
I suggest that you go get a dictionary and look up the definition of the word "impossible".
Mojo
Mostly harmless
In as much as they appear to be accurate, yes, but that doesn't alter that fact that they are merely a man-made description of the way the universe appears to behave.
Do you mean like on the grand scale of the Universe and existence itself?
We cannot escape the laws of physics ... at least our physical bodies can't.
Really? Then the Universe has always been this complex?
Yet again, this is a point which has been explained to Iacchus over a dozen times. He is simply trolling.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
You're missing the point, I suspect because you're hung up on the word "laws". The "laws of physics" are not laws in the sense that they are something that was preordained and therefore has to be followed; they are just a man-made description. Scientists have figured out a set of rules that appear to predict how things behave; the "laws of physics" are nothing more nor less than this man-made description.We cannot escape the laws of physics ... at least our physical bodies can't.
You do realize that the only way we can make heads or tails out of this is through sentience don't you? Why are you so quick to discount that? Not to say that our perceptions are infallible but, it seems to be where the answer lies.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Yes: we figured out the "laws of physics" through our own sentience. We do not need to invent imaginary sentient beings to explain them.
Are you suggesting that there could have been a point when there were no "laws of physics," not even in theory? This is really what it all boils down to doesn't it? The only thing that would come close to describing that would be absolute nothingness.
Last edited:
Perhaps for the same reason it was discounted all the other times you have said the same thing: because it is circular.
Iacchus, this thread is nothing at all that you have not attempted at least half a dozen times (usually more) in other threads. Can you add something new, or is this simply spamming?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
No. What I am saying is that the "laws of physics" do not determine how things behave; they describe how things behave.
Yes, sentience is the means by which we acknowledge truth. What is truth, except that which encompasses the depth and breadth of infinity? Hence it would seem that sentience, and the discovery of truth, is bound to everything.
Last edited: