User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 39

  1. #11
    Senior Member Munchies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    XNXP
    Enneagram
    OMG sx
    Socionics
    iuno
    Posts
    474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I don't claim to grasp infinity, but growth and expansion don't seem like qualities associated with "infinite". Wouldn't the infinite just "be"?

    I might say that there's something beyond our universe (a mega universe or multiverse) that could be infinite, and that our universe is expanding within it. Whether it contracts into a smaller form (the "Big Crunch") or keeps expanding and gets colder and stagnant, I don't know. Either way, it undergoes change.
    You have good points.

    Isee the the expansion of the universe as a fruit, just as everything else in the universe. The universe is expanding, but i think it stems from something else, which stems from something else, which stems from something else, etc etc etc. And i think when it explodes or whatever, it gives off it's energy for other things to form other types of "fruit" by transfering it's stored energy. Just as a tomato grows, and is stemmed from the tree which stemmed to the ground which is existant because of other factors which is existant because of ther factos etc etc. I think it just goes to show there is something else beyond the universe. But it's all specualtion
    1+1=3 OMFG

  2. #12
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    well... if the universe is everything that exists, has existed and will exist then I suppose that it would have to exist since this thought is existing... even if there wasn't anything then nothing would exist... which would bring up the question of "does nothing count as something?"

    and questions are something
    I want to exist. That's proof enough for me. Am I deluding myself? Who cares.

  3. #13
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I want to exist. That's proof enough for me. Am I deluding myself? Who cares.
    want is something... therefore the universe exists!

    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    I've noticed NTs and I tend to disagree a lot on interpretations of physics and I'm curious as to others perception of this. I think that science was heavily influenced by being generated in a monotheistic culture. Thus the holy grail of physics being the toe, the classical concept of "universe", even perhaps the idea of irreducible bits (which again are being integrated in the concepts of strings) all of which act as remnants of/are used to prop up monism. I find that many of these people also have trouble thinking in terms of non-linear time, of time as not having constant rate, of positionality as time in a static universe, etc. So what say you?

    Note: I am also dubious of proof by negation which I've noticed is a hallmark of many tj types.
    This could be a really interesting discussion, that goes in many different directions.

    To me the concept of the universe has a similar history as the concept of an atom.

    The notion of an "atom" was that of an indivisible unit of matter that makes up everything. But scientists, over-time, operationalized it to mean something else.

    It is still a "basic" unit of matter. However, it is no longer considered "indivisible". It has just worked its way into our language to mean that particular basic unit. It would be rather confusing to change what that word refers to now.

    I think it is the same thing with "universe".

    It did initially mean everything that exists. But as we started to poke and prod at its properties and measure things about it, the thing we were measuring properties of became our notion of the "universe."

    It may well be that our "universe" is not the only one that exists. Making the word "universe" loose its original philosophical meaning, while keeping its operationalized scientific meaning.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  5. #15
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmileyMan View Post
    Tell me, how does one think in non-linear time?
    Cyclic would be the other.
    We already do, but limit it linearly.

    Almost like the life cycles of Buddhism.

  6. #16
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524
    Being both conceals and reveals, so as far as we are concerned, being both exists and doesn't exist.

    So if we say the universe is everything that exists, we are ommitting everything that doesn't exist. In fact we are ignoring the very nature of being.

    And interestingly, the most of the mass of the proton consists of fields in space coming into being and going out of being, quite like human beings.

    All of us are being here now, but within a lifetime, we will all go out of being, quite like the space in a proton.

  7. #17
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524
    Quote Originally Posted by SmileyMan View Post
    Tell me, how does one think in non-linear time?
    Non-linear time is tribal time, where we all feel the same emotion at the same time.

    While linear time is literate time, which is linear, sequential and individual.

    So tribal time is ever repeating, like our emotions, while literate time has a begining, a middle and an end, like a printed book.

  8. #18
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qlip View Post
    I'm having trouble understanding what you are getting at here. Universe has always meant 'everything that exists'. So it doesn't parse when you ask if everything that exists exists.

    I assume you are asking whether everything that exists has some sort of specific properties or attributes?
    Ah, sorry if I was being vague in my original post. I guess I didn't want to taint the responses given with my own opinion. My personal view is that a coherent universe subscribing to a set of universal laws is not necessary. There are various formulations, but I tend to think of them as partially overlapping branes for example with questionable properties like quintessence in flux.

    @SmileyMan: this may help http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)

    The modern view of time is that it doesn't exist independently of particle motion. So time in some ways can be thought of as relationships between particles in motion. These relationships can be time symmetric (at small scales) because we cannot tell the size of the universe it is possible that energy density tends to infinitity which could cause decreasing entropy in the observable universe and time reversal. Another view is that time is retrocausal and can exist in loops where effects precede causes. The laws of quantum mechanics are time symmetric.

    @KDude: I guess I started questioning this in part because I view many of the accepted views of the fate of the universe as actually kind of scary and quite negative. I know they emotionally disturbed me in my teens and so I began to want to find an alternative that wasn't so bleak. Thankfully, there are many viable alternatives that are standard accepted views within the scientific community, but at least to me they are boring and do not contain the level of complexity I need for my imagination to run wild so I began thinking of alternatives that would allow for more fun.

    @ygolo: I am wondering partially because many fundamental properties in physics are described in terms of one another leading to circular logic loops. So.. if if our conceptualization of them is kept open rather than fixed and we view the universe as in an ambiguous state with regard to these properties I believe it creates neurological stress which allows for formation of new neurons to be able to experience these interpretations simultaneously as viable decreasing cognitive load. Imo people tend to project their neurological functioning onto the "univetse" itself.

    @whatever: lol thanks for bringing some (I'm sure) much needed levity to the convo

  9. #19
    Senior Member swordpath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    ISTx
    Posts
    10,552

    Default

    Fuck, actual scientific terminology was introduced into this thread...

    *keeps mouth shut*

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    @ygolo: I am wondering partially because many fundamental properties in physics are described in terms of one another leading to circular logic loops.
    Circular logic is something that is, in a way, unavoidable. Any attempt to make concepts more precise or measurable, leads to this issue.

    In order for a community of people to make progress about things they have in common, they need to make sure the words they are using are refer to the same things.

    In situations where different parts of the community use the same word to refer to different things, communication becomes increasingly difficult.

    I was taught in software engineering that when I want to encode the logic that a certain community is using, I need to first have them agree on the meaning of the terms, so that consistent entity-relationships can be encoded...otherwise it will lead to defects in the software rather quickly (catching defects at conception is a lot more effective than catching them after code, even with all the rapid prototyping methodologies around).

    When you try to have people agree, generally, you have to define things so that it captures things that are important to people regarding the terms. This, unfortunately, requires (re)defining terms together.


    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    So.. if if our conceptualization of them is kept open rather than fixed and we view the universe as in an ambiguous state with regard to these properties I believe it creates neurological stress which allows for formation of new neurons to be able to experience these interpretations simultaneously as viable decreasing cognitive load. Imo people tend to project their neurological functioning onto the "univetse" itself.
    I guess there are a couple of points here.

    One is that we ought to keep our conceptualization "open rather than fixed".

    I can see the appeal of this. It allows us to more free-form, quick, and flexible in our thinking.

    But again, "fixing" our conceptions allow us to work together. They don't need to be permanently fixed, just fixed long enough that people can work collaboratively.

    The other point about the neurological stress of this leading to the formation of new neurons, etc...

    I don't know.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

Similar Threads

  1. What is my type? (or not)
    By Laurie in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-28-2010, 12:47 PM
  2. Is there a function or a mix of functions that is responsible for this...
    By JustHer in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-17-2009, 10:40 AM
  3. No such thing as a silly question .. Or is there???
    By Saslou in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-25-2009, 05:27 PM
  4. To Be or Not to Be...That is the Question!!
    By Winds of Thor in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-11-2009, 05:06 AM
  5. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 05-20-2007, 03:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO