Does Matter Really Exist?

[Iacchus]

No it's not. It's based on conclusive evidence. You have no grounds for saying anything. As I've said before, you're only believing this to make yourself feel better.

I am in the center. The center is my origin. Everything revolves around the center. Even the Big Bang has it's center of origin.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Even the Big Bang has it's center of origin.

Nooo... that's a misunderstanding of the meaning of the Big Bang, and the nature of space. The entire universe is the center of the Big Bang. Infintessimally small point = the entire universe.

 

[Iacchus]

Nooo... that's a misunderstanding of the meaning of the Big Bang, and the nature of space. The entire universe is the center of the Big Bang. Infintessimally small point = the entire universe.

Are you saying that the entire Universe doesn't extend itself from a single point outward? I believe most of us would constitute this as its center.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Are you saying that the entire Universe doesn't extend itself from a single point outward? I believe most of us would constitute this as its center.

The universe did not extend from a single point outward. There was no such thing as outward. The universe got bigger, but there was no space surrounding it.

 

[Iacchus]

The universe did not extend from a single point outward. There was no such thing as outward. The universe got bigger, but there was no space surrounding it.

So, who ever said the Universe was expanding then? From what point, if not its center?

Or, might it have something to do with time and space coming together in the here and now? Does that mean the center of the (physical) Universe is everywhere? I suppose it's possible if, it were just a hologram.

 

[Mercutio]

So, who ever said the Universe was expanding then? From what point, if not its center?

Or, might it have something to do with time and space coming together in the here and now? Does that mean the center of the (physical) Universe is everywhere? I suppose it's possible if, it were just a hologram.

Your fundamental misunderstandings of both time/space and holograms notwithstanding, you really should know better than to trot that one out yet again. Once again, the only similarity between the two concepts is that you have no grasp of either.

You could probably do a search of your own posts and see your hologram argument demolished two or three times over. Is this another one of those cases where you are proud, rather than ashamed, of your ignorance?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

So, who ever said the Universe was expanding then? From what point, if not its center?

Or, might it have something to do with time and space coming together in the here and now? Does that mean the center of the (physical) Universe is everywhere? I suppose it's possible if, it were just a hologram.

Yes Iacchus, the "center", the point of origin of the Big Bang is every single point in the Universe. That's why there's cosmic background radiation. It's the residual energy of the Universe, and it's almost entirely uniformly distributed. Appearantly, if there wasn't some miniscule irregularity, matter would have been prefectly uniformly distructed, and we would have the stars, planets, galaxies and other celestial bodies we know and love.

 

[Mercutio]

The only answers we can hope to find are within the experience of consciousness itself, not outside of it.

You may be interested to find out (you should already be aware, but are obviously not) that your reply here stands in direct contradiction to your earlier statement:

As if to say, we should not examine who is doing the examining? Whereas if we are to examine it, shouldn't the ability to examine be tantamount and come first? Because of whatever we examine, it will always be contingent upon our ability to examine, regardless of where it takes us.

Too bad your real stance is the more recent post--your introspective studies are hopelessly biased and inaccurate, which you would quickly realize if you were to follow your own earlier advice.

 

[Iacchus]

Your fundamental misunderstandings of both time/space and holograms notwithstanding, you really should know better than to trot that one out yet again. Once again, the only similarity between the two concepts is that you have no grasp of either.

Oh really?

You could probably do a search of your own posts and see your hologram argument demolished two or three times over. Is this another one of those cases where you are proud, rather than ashamed, of your ignorance?

That's nice.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes Iacchus, the "center", the point of origin of the Big Bang is every single point in the Universe. That's why there's cosmic background radiation. It's the residual energy of the Universe, and it's almost entirely uniformly distributed. Appearantly, if there wasn't some miniscule irregularity, matter would have been prefectly uniformly distructed, and we would have the stars, planets, galaxies and other celestial bodies we know and love.

So we merely have the appearance of spatial dimensions then? This has been my contention all along.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

So we merely have the appearance of spatial dimensions then? This has been my contention all along.

No. You are wrong.

It's simply that the nature of space at the largest scale does not conform to our common sense understanding of space. There is nothing outside the univese. The Universe is expanding. There is no space outside the Universe into which it is expanding, there is simply more total space today than there was yesterday. Merely because an demonstrated fact seems paradoxical does not make it untrue.

 

[Iacchus]

You may be interested to find out (you should already be aware, but are obviously not) that your reply here stands in direct contradiction to your earlier statement:

Too bad your real stance is the more recent post--your introspective studies are hopelessly biased and inaccurate, which you would quickly realize if you were to follow your own earlier advice.

I have followed my own advice, and it leads me to a different conclusion. The thing you need to learn how to do here though, is trust what you know. And by that I mean if you put all your trust in what Science tells you, then "you" don't really know anything.

 

[Iacchus]

No. You are wrong.

It's simply that the nature of space at the largest scale does not conform to our common sense understanding of space. There is nothing outside the univese. The Universe is expanding. There is no space outside the Universe into which it is expanding, there is simply more total space today than there was yesterday. Merely because an demonstrated fact seems paradoxical does not make it untrue.

Yes, it is possible to imagine such a thing, contained within a hologram. Because whatever it is that induces the hologram, continues to feed it information to extend it further. However, outside of the hologram or, the means by which to experience it, there would be nothing ... contingent to the hologram that is.

 

[Mercutio]

I have followed my own advice, and it leads me to a different conclusion. The thing you need to learn how to do here though, is trust what you know. And by that I mean if you put all your trust in what Science tells you, then "you" don't really know anything.

No, Iacchus, you have not followed your advice. You have studiously avoided any sort of critical evaluation of your introspective accounts. You have avoided learning about the brain. You have avoided learning about dreams. You have avoided learning about evolution. You have avoided learning about cosmology. And yet, in each of these cases, you have put forth your dream-derived "knowledge" (in quotes for irony) and rejected the evidence of those who actually work in those respective areas. This is patently not following your advice, which was:

As if to say, we should not examine who is doing the examining? Whereas if we are to examine it, shouldn't the ability to examine be tantamount and come first? Because of whatever we examine, it will always be contingent upon our ability to examine, regardless of where it takes us.

You do not, and have never, examined the examiner. You have taken your dreams and numerology as if they were on equal footing with science, whether you have had to artificially inflate your own, or try your futile best to deflate science, in order to do so.

You have not followed your advice, nor have you been led to any conclusions. The "conclusions" you have met are only those which you started out by assuming.

You are quite simply wrong.

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, it is possible to imagine such a thing, contained within a hologram. Because whatever it is that induces the hologram, continues to feed it information to extend it further. However, outside of the hologram or, the means by which to experience it, there would be nothing ... contingent to the hologram that is.

Please, Iacchus. Go learn something about holograms. Then, go learn something about time/space. Have a good laugh at your naivety, then come back here and tell us all about it.

Hint: holograms are not like they are in the movies.

 

[Iacchus]

Hint: holograms are not like they are in the movies.

In terms of levels of sophistication, yes, you are correct.

 

[Iacchus]

No, Iacchus, you have not followed your advice. You have studiously avoided any sort of critical evaluation of your introspective accounts. You have avoided learning about the brain. You have avoided learning about dreams. You have avoided learning about evolution. You have avoided learning about cosmology. And yet, in each of these cases, you have put forth your dream-derived "knowledge" (in quotes for irony) and rejected the evidence of those who actually work in those respective areas. This is patently not following your advice, which was:

You do not, and have never, examined the examiner. You have taken your dreams and numerology as if they were on equal footing with science, whether you have had to artificially inflate your own, or try your futile best to deflate science, in order to do so.

You have not followed your advice, nor have you been led to any conclusions. The "conclusions" you have met are only those which you started out by assuming.

You are quite simply wrong.

Yes, isn't it something that "I" can conceive of something greater than "I?" Sorry, you're wrong.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes, isn't it something that "I" can conceive of something greater than "I?" Sorry, you're wrong.

Don't you mean,

"Yes, isn't it something that "I" can conceive of something greater than "me?"

Please stop abusing English.

I also believe in things greater than me. I believe that humanity needs people to work to benefit it. That's noble and grand enough for my needs.

 

[Belz...]

So, who ever said the Universe was expanding then? From what point, if not its center?

The universe doesn't have a center and doesn't expand into anything. This has been told to you time and again. The is no SPACE outside the universe. There is no OUTSIDE the universe.

I suppose it's possible if, it were just a hologram.

A hologram is not a no-dimensional point. Your analogy is flawed, as always.

thing you need to learn how to do here though, is trust what you know. And by that I mean if you put all your trust in what Science tells you, then "you" don't really know anything.

NO! Science has progressed precisely because it leads people to doubt their knowledge and seek MORE knowledge, not accept what they think they know and leave it at that. That is called RELIGION, not science.

Yes, it is possible to imagine such a thing, contained within a hologram. Because whatever it is that induces the hologram, continues to feed it information to extend it further. However, outside of the hologram or, the means by which to experience it, there would be nothing ... contingent to the hologram that is.

Induces... contingent. You just keep recycling these words, don't you ?

 

[Iacchus]

I also believe in things greater than me. I believe that humanity needs people to work to benefit it. That's noble and grand enough for my needs.

So, do you think this notion of yours worked its way up or, filtered itself down? If it's such a grand and lofty idea, how did it get there?