What, aside from the fact that we're not here by chance? And, that maybe some of us are afraid God's going to take our toys away from us if we discover He's behind it all?
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
What if we discover its one of the following...
1.) Matrix?
2.) Solipsism?
3.) Greek gods?
4.) God's dream?
5.) Reincarnation?
And what if it was specifically not solipsism, God's dream or reincarnation? ... albeit God's dream and reincarnation may not necessarily be wrong in and of itself?
Is that what you are afraid of?
...that would certainly explain your avoidance of learning.
Maybe you'd better avoid this site like you avoid libraries. There is a very real danger you might learn something, after all...
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
And what if it is? The problem is that there is no way of knowing so what's the point?
You seem to think that a question is the same as an answer. To come to a conclusion based on what we don't know is to reason from ignorance.
Belz...
Fiend God
Iacchus said:
But then, how could you tell the difference ?
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
In the analogy, we have the advantage of observing the balloon from outside the balloon, even though within the bounds of the analogy there is no outside the balloon from which to observe. We don't have that advantage in reality, though. We can't leave spacetime and observe it from outside. Nevertheless, we have to grapple with the apparent fact that the universe is centerless, and one way to deal with it is to discard the idea of spacetime extending infinitely in all directions and consider the idea that it loops back on itself somehow (analogously, the way 2D-space loops back on itself on the surface of the balloon).I am willing to accept that there is nothing outside of the balloon, as near as you folks can tell anyway.However, I would very much like to know where the four dimensions of space-time are supposed to exist.
Let's take a look at where this conclusion of centerlessness comes from:
1. We observe objects in space moving away from us and one another, and so it appears that the universe is expanding.
2. We observe objects moving away from us at a uniform rate, and so it appears initially that we're smack dab at the center of the universe, which is pretty surprising.
3. What's even more surprising, though, is that the distant objects are moving away from each other at the same uniform rate, which doesn't make any sense in a model with an outward expansion originating at a specific center. Picture the balloon again, and imagine all the dots on the balloon moving away from each other at the same rate that they're moving away from the center of the space inside the balloon. It doesn't work. Draw the vectors if you don't believe me.
So centerlessness is a conclusion based on observation. "Curved" spacetime is a hypothesis put forth to deal with it.
Sorry, it all begins with self-awareness. This is not to say, however, that some of our other theories are not without merit.
But, to the degree that you discount the observer or, the quality thereof, you are simply mistaken.
Last edited:
Yes, but a two-dimensional plane in and of itself does not contain anything. However, if what you're saying is that everything exists within this two-dimensional plane, then it suggests that we are living in some sort of illusion and, that in fact somebody has pulled the wool over our eyes. Which, of course has been my contention all along. But then again, it might make more sense if we said everything existed relative to the observer. Isn't this in fact something that Einstein said? Which of course makes even more sense when I say we are not to discount the observer. Not within the parameters of time and space anyway.
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 10,219
Yes, but a two-dimensional plane in and of itself does not contain anything. However, if what you're saying is that everything exists within this two-dimensional plane, then it suggests that we are living in some sort of illusion and, that in fact somebody has pulled the wool over our eyes. Which, of course has been my contention all along. But then again, it might make more sense if we said everything existed relative to the observer. Isn't this in fact something that Einstein said? Which of course makes even more sense when I say we are not to discount the observer. Not within the parameters of time and space anyway.
chipmunk is not saying we live in two dimensions. It's an analogy.
Well then, maybe chipmunk and I have something to talk about then?
Watch the videos. Maybe then you will see how foolish your claim is.Sorry, it all begins with self-awareness. This is not to say, however, that some of our other theories are not without merit.
Sorry, you cannot deconstruct the obsever within the parameters of time and space. In fact all you can do really, is define what supports it. Which, is the express purpose of the brain by the way.
And yes, I may in fact watch the videos (not today) but, not from the standpoint of being a fool, however.
Last edited:
Yes, we experiece the sense of a third and fourth dimension but, is that really what it is? When we begin to describe it in terms of two dimensions, might I suggest we're describing what is illusory?
Last edited:
More Hologram Theory
You see, if we merely existed in a hologram, there in effect would be nothing defined outside of it, although it would appear to expand outward, within the parameters of the hologram that is. While for the same reason, there would be nothing defined in its center, simply because the center is defined within the hologram. And, since the hologram doesn't really occupy time and space, but rather provides the illusion of time and space, there's no need for it occupy anything other than a single point ... which, in effect doesn't exist in that sense either. Hence we have the notion of everything exanding away from everything else, simply because it all originates precisely at the same point ... and yet, doesn't expand into anything.
You see, if we merely existed in a hologram, there in effect would be nothing defined outside of it, although it would appear to expand outward, within the parameters of the hologram that is. While for the same reason, there would be nothing defined in its center, simply because the center is defined within the hologram. And, since the hologram doesn't really occupy time and space, but rather provides the illusion of time and space, there's no need for it occupy anything other than a single point ... which, in effect doesn't exist in that sense either. Hence we have the notion of everything exanding away from everything else, simply because it all originates precisely at the same point ... and yet, doesn't expand into anything.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Can you give even the tiniest hint of an iota of a smidgen of a particle of a trace of a hologram of a reason to believe that a hologram does not occupy time and space?
I'm thinking more along the lines of the "invisible" signal that the TV recieves in order to display the picture on the screen. All the information that is ultimately displayed on the screen is contained within the signal itself. So the signal in effect would define the parameters (internally) of the hologram.
The signal is also contained within time and space. Your analogy is another bad one.
Sorry, Iacchus, but you are doing nothing to alleviate the impression that you will indeed be watching the videos...and frankly, doing anything else...from the standpoint of being a fool.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
A TV signal is not a hologram. But aside from that, the signal is a physical phenomenon, invisible to the eye, but of course detectable by any number of physical instruments, not the least of which is a television set. It is an electromagnetic wave, and it is absolutely, critically, constantly and verifiably bounded, defined, and characterized by its temporality.
I suppose you could attempt to redefine the signal in the context of the information it contains, but as with so many such things, the information is not independent of the signal: it is a product of it.