| Sqrl said: @Appolose, Responding to bolded paragraphs... Paragraph 1: Nothing you stated here contradicts my point, we appear to agree. Any energy external to the universal system is by definition not bound to our universal laws. You are absolutely correct in saying that this energy could still be subjected to the same laws but the underlying point I'm making is that the 1st law of thermodynamics does not set out a requirement that the universe has supernatural origin and that natural origins have yet to be ruled out. Note that the laws of physics in our universe are known to be heavily dependent on its makeup (and vice versa), even a relatively small difference in another universe could easily result in completely foreign laws. I want to point out that my position is that there is insufficient evidence one way or the other, appeals to what seems likely from a given persons view is interesting and I believe it is an instrumental part in working our way towards a solution but alone I ultimately view it as an invalid basis for conclusion. So, there is a real possibility that our universe could come into existence through natural means from nothing. As such we cannot logically deduce its origins are natural or supernatural. The question is still unanswered. Although I would concur that it may be premature to assert that the energy in question is bound by our known laws, I would also think that as much of this area of quantum mechanics (correct me if I'm wrong) is unobserved and hypothetical, and, as such, does not weigh too heavily, in the scientific sense, against our observations of a closed system (i.e., energy appears conserved in many more observations and established theories). Paragraph 2: Again I agree. Philosophical skepticism's problems do not necessarily validate other schools of thought or even invalidate it, but its lack of producing a rational solution for even basic tasks such as eating make it very easy to rule out as a worthwhile endeavor to me personally. In short I'm uninterested in a debate on the topic because I don't believe it is capable of producing anything worth discussing. If you'd like to keep it as part of your argument I'd just as soon not have the debate. Not trying to piss in your cheerios (so to speak), but I don't like beating around the bush and pointing out the inherit uncertainty in all things however unlikely seems to qualify. I think you'll understand where I'm coming from though. Yeah, I completely understand; philisophical arguments do take a long, long time. So as to not detract from the other argument, I'll drop it. Paragraph 3: The point is that you do not need to enter from the start of an infinite expanse to exist within it. This is a misconception. If we had to travel infinitely then yes there would be a problem but no such requirement exists. To use another very loose analogy you can picture the surface of a sphere as the model for a universe and all of its dimensions (time being latitude and 1-dim space being longitude). Now imagine walking around the sphere(universe) in the time dimension until you get to the end or turning around to walk back to the beginning. Obviously you cannot reach either goal and would walk seemingly forever, yet the total surface area of the sphere (ie the area of this universe's space-time) is non-infinite and the circumference around a specified portion of the sphere (its history) is also non-infinite. Understanding from above that it is possible for something to come from nothing you will see that there is no requirement for any "thing" to begin on the "edge" of a dimension. Please note that this explanation is actually somewhat redundant, parts of it are over explained for clarity. While I do understand (I think) that it's completely plausible to exist within an infinite expanse, but saying the universe has had infinite time in the past would directly imply that the universe had traveled and infinite amount of time. Unless you mean that the universe at some point in time had manifested, in which case there's still the problem of time itself having had gone on for infinity. Fundamentally we exist within dimensions not on them, the concept of entering is something based in our every day view of the world. One of the reasons I mentioned the need to understand non-euclidean geometry before is because the majority of people have assumed our universe is based in euclidean geometry (ie what you learned in school where the function of a line is "y=mx+b" (where m=slope and b=y-intercept) etc... Now, even though euclidean geometry appears to work flawlessly in our daily lives there is uncertainty as to which form of geometry truly holds for the universe. What we do know is that it must be a homogeneous and isotropic geometry which narrows it down to euclidean, hyperbolic, and elliptic. I know you want me to post links but honestly the best I can do is suggest you read Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality". It is a book steeped in the mathematical beauty and complexity of a number of topics including (but not limited to) Pythagorean theorem, Hyperbolic geometry, Fourier Decomposition, Hypercomplex numbers, Minkowskian Geometry, Quantam Field theory, etc.... Penrose is one of the most respected physicists in his field and he does an excellent job in the book of pointing out when what he is telling you is an unsettled matter and presents the main competing positions for you to consider yourself. I'm still working my way through it honestly and its hardly a light read, but his insights far exceed the value of any free source of knowledge on the subject that I've found (and I've scoured the net quite a bit). The topics are simply too interconnected to give a truly adequate explanation and honestly Penrose has done such an excellent job explaining it already so it would be silly to reproduce his works in detail here. If you're looking for something more towards the layman's side of things I have two other book suggestions for you, PM me if you're interested in those. Honestly they aren't a bad read to start with for getting introduced to the concepts before learning the math behind them (although they don't cover nearly the ground that Penrose does).
|
Okami
To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made. I won't open my unworthy mouth.
