What's beyond this universe?

[felicissimus]

You do not know what's a hyperbole.As for my thought it is impling that scientists should stay only in their sphere and do not speak of things without proofs.As for the progress do you know why it is mainly Europe that started it and contributed to it ? Because it had a christian thought and philosophy.

[Kretchfoop]

Hyperbole is defined as an "extravagant exaggeration".

Actually this frenatic obsession with science started 3 centuries ago and at that time science claimed the same"we'll understand everything and prove what we say know ..without proofs.."

I think I used the word quite correctly. That's fine if you think things like love cannot be scientifcaly explained. However, claiming that science has not prooved anything over 300 years certainly seems like an extravagant exaggeration to me. And you damage your argument by saying something like that. You'll have a hard time convincing people that for example, the phenomenom of gravitation has not been scientificaly prooven using the general theory of relativity.

[Simetrical]

Neural activity ?! Is a man just a machine ?!

Sure, why not?

Time given the scientists'll understand they know nothing and 'll turn to philosophy !

I very much doubt that. They haven't in the past four centuries, why now?

Actually this frenatic obsession with science started 3 centuries ago and at that time science claimed the same"we'll understand everything and prove what we say know ..without proofs.." Today i see they continue in the same way..but much more disbelieved and unsure.

Science will never explain everything. But it will explain many things, and it will do so usefully. I will not accept any "explanation" that cannot justify itself on the basis of observations. Your reference to lack of proof is interesting: surely philosophy has far less in the way of proof than science?

As for my thought it is impling that scientists should stay only in their sphere and do not speak of things without proofs.

Neurologists have much evidence to support their views that neural activity appears to be very closely linked with thought. What evidence do you have other than appeals to emotion?

As for the progress do you know why it is mainly Europe that started it and contributed to it ? Because it had a christian thought and philosophy.

And then how did Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore surpass much of the Christian West in terms of science and technology over the past several decades? Why are Eastern Europe and South America so far behind, when they're Christian as much as Western Europe and the British colonies? Why has the advance of science and technology come along with loss of faith in a God?

[felicissimus]

[QUOTE=Simetrical;1440619]Sure, why not?



"Science will never explain everything. But it will explain many things, and it will do so usefully. I will not accept any "explanation" that cannot justify itself on the basis of observations. Your reference to lack of proof is interesting: surely philosophy has far less in the way of proof than science?"

Observations.Yes,sure if we refer to biology or smth like .But to connect everything with observations is narrowmindness.If you observe too much you don't use your mind just record what you see.You have to think logically instead.As for the proofs ,philosophy has them more -through logic and they are clear.I 'll give you one example .St.Thomas's proof-everything should have a cause and an engine,including the world-and the first cause of everything is God.Quite clear.What does science say?! It has never indeed prooved and argumented its theory of evolution for example.The key points of this theory are the species with characteristics of both the previous and the posterior species-such as one having both ch. of a bird and of a reptile,of mammal and of a reptile and so on. Such were never found.Nor is the theory ever argumented logically.I need not continue in fact.
Observing the ants you miss the elephant.

[Simetrical]

Then why is so long discussion of this question being held?

Because people are interested by the question regardless of my opinion of its worth.

Is this the reason why we TWcers come here to base our views,to listen from the administrators that our views are ill-defined and our questions are worthless??

Please don't consider my posts here those of an administrator. I am merely a poster when I post outside my official capacity.

For example for the thought and nervous system where are the proofs if smbd claims the thought is material ?!

The proof would be if thought could be affected or detected by material means. It can be, to an ever-increasing extent. Sure, the current interest is basically sensory and motor control, because those are the most useful and palatable: people aren't happy with "mind control", but they're delighted to research cures for blindness and so on.

As for the present though they produce much economically you can't compare a modern life in Europe with for ex. a muslim life in Dubai with their 1000 children per family and so on.

You can compare it with an atheist or pagan life in Japan, though.

South America-do you believe the civilization has affected them much ?

Well, they're certainly Christian, probably the most Christian region in the world.

Observations.Yes,sure if we refer to biology or smth like .But to connect everything with observations is narrowmindness.If you observe too much you don't use your mind just record what you see.You have to think logically instead.

You have to do both.

As for the proofs ,philosophy has them more -through logic and they are clear.I 'll give you one example .St.Thomas's proof-everything should have a cause and an engine,including the world-and the first cause of everything is God.

But the premise is unproven. Who says everything has to have a cause or an engine? Science would demand evidence for anything like that. You have none, except that it "makes sense" to you. Science does not rely on subjective judgments like that.

Furthermore, that "logic" doesn't even work. The premise is that everything has a cause, but then the conclusion states (implicitly) that God has no cause. That's a contradiction.

What does science say?! It has never indeed prooved and argumented its theory of evolution for example.

It has most definitely proved that beyond any doubt. See here for a lengthy explanation of many branches of proof that have conclusively demonstrated the common descent of all life from a single organism.

The key points of this theory are the species with characteristics of both the previous and the posterior species-such as one having both ch. of a bird and of a reptile,of mammal and of a reptile and so on. Such were never found.

First of all, the premise there is false. The theory of evolution does not require intermediate specimens to have survived. Only a tiny percentage of all life gets embedded in fossils, and it's perfectly possible that all the "missing links" just didn't get fossilized. That is entirely consistent with evolutionary theory, especially an extreme version of punctuated equilibrium.

Second of all, many transitional fossils have been found. See here for a list of many of them. Note the exact wording of the page (emphasis added):

Our standard tree shows that the bird grouping is most closely related to the reptilian grouping, with a node linking the two (A in Figure 1); thus we predict the possibility of finding fossil intermediates between birds and reptiles. The same reasoning applies to mammals and reptiles (B in Figure 1). However, we predict that we should never find fossil intermediates between birds and mammals.

There you have a concrete prediction, which could be falsified any day as fossil after fossil is dug up, but never has been to date. There are many more in that article.

[felicissimus]

Hyperbole is defined as an "extravagant exaggeration".



I think I used the word quite correctly. That's fine if you think things like love cannot be scientifcaly explained. However, claiming that science has not prooved anything over 300 years certainly seems like an extravagant exaggeration to me. And you damage your argument by saying something like that. You'll have a hard time convincing people that for example, the phenomenom of gravitation has not been scientificaly prooven using the general theory of relativity.

I did not claim science hasn't prooved absolutely anything,that would be stupid especially for natural phenomena such as gravity.I meant they don't prove when stepping out of their sphere and affecting the sphere of philosophy and religion.For example for the thought and nervous system where are the proofs if smbd claims the thought is material ?!You should understand what i said compared to written above not taken out of context.Therefore i don't see a hyperbole-because the most regular answer of science for 300 years now to claims they have and admit not to have proofs for is-"one day we'll know(thrust us for now)".That is so literary.
As for the progress i don't agree Taiwan or smwhere else in Asia is the best place in the world.Progress started in Europe and was brought to the asians by the Europeans.As for the present though they produce much economically you can't compare a modern life in Europe with for ex. a muslim life in Dubai with their 1000 children per family and so on.I still think Europe is the top.As for Eastern Europe,it's the abundance of atheistic regimes that brought it to these conditions and at present it is the least christian place in the world.South America-do you believe the civilization has affected them much ?

[felicissimus]

Simetrical,man,about the evolution,i expected in your "proofs" for it to OBSERVE smth/ I use that word just because you seem to like it especially and you want to observe everything/.Instead i get sketches,figures and tables ! They are nothing more than a fancy of a scientist ,smth fantastic ! You admit that no intermediate specimen was ever found ! Do i have to counter you more in this discussion ?
Second,this discussion is definitely not about the evolution.And i feel you like to oppose everybody,no matter what he says.I suggest not to turn this thread into my and yours dispute about everything,let's keep to the topic.If you find me an interesting opponent i suggest that we meet some day and do the dispute the right way.

[felicissimus]

Ah,and for st.Thomas's proof.There is no contradiction.Do i have to repeat the whole theory as he said it ? I believe everybody heard about it.It states that all known things in this world do need to have a cause.And they do.But this cannot go endless.There has to be a first cause and engine,which caused all the other things in a row to be.This first cause is not caused by anything but it's cause lies in itself. It is the self-moving and eternal thing,that being causeless causes everything like an avalanche.And it has to be because you cannot continue finding causes for everything endless.That would be unlogic.This first and causeless thing that had/and has/ a movement in itself is God !
Plus it has to be eternal because all things that have a start in the time ,have a cause...Now conclude-if the materia in the Universe is proven to has had a start in time/before which it did not exist/ isn't the first and eternal thing-God ,nonmaterial ?!

[Simetrical]

Simetrical,man,about the evolution,i expected in your "proofs" for it to OBSERVE smth/ I use that word just because you seem to like it especially and you want to observe everything/.Instead i get sketches,figures and tables ! They are nothing more than a fancy of a scientist ,smth fantastic !

They summarize observations. Obviously you aren't going to be able to make the same ones personally unless you devote your life to it. Are you suggesting that the scientists are in a massive conspiracy to fabricate data, or do you not recognize that data is summarized in the sketches, figures, and tables?

You admit that no intermediate specimen was ever found !

First of all, I said the opposite: some intermediate specimens have been found. But it doesn't matter, because the theory of evolution doesn't predict that such specimens must be found. It predicts that it's possible for them to be found. A strong variant of punctuated equilibrium, an evolutionary theory, would predict that they would not be found.

Second,this discussion is definitely not about the evolution.

Fair point. It's gone rather off-topic.

Ah,and for st.Thomas's proof.There is no contradiction.Do i have to repeat the whole theory as he said it ? I believe everybody heard about it.It states that all known things in this world do need to have a cause.And they do.But this cannot go endless.

There's the most straightforward flaw. Why? Why not have an infinite succession of causes? Aristotle believed in an eternal universe, for instance. It violates no rules of logic. It's only, perhaps, unintuitive. That's not a sound basis for argument. Aquinas did the best he could to rationalize God, but that's not very much.

[Metellus]

Ah,and for st.Thomas's proof.There is no contradiction.Do i have to repeat the whole theory as he said it ? I believe everybody heard about it.It states that all known things in this world do need to have a cause.And they do.But this cannot go endless.There has to be a first cause and engine,which caused all the other things in a row to be.This first cause is not caused by anything but it's cause lies in itself. It is the self-moving and eternal thing,that being causeless causes everything like an avalanche.And it has to be because you cannot continue finding causes for everything endless.That would be unlogic.This first and causeless thing that had/and has/ a movement in itself is God !
Plus it has to be eternal because all things that have a start in the time ,have a cause...Now conclude-if the materia in the Universe is proven to has had a start in time/before which it did not exist/ isn't the first and eternal thing-God ,nonmaterial ?!

I thought I might mention something to toughen felicissimus' case here. The Law of Causality he is referring to here is often misquoted (sorry felicissimus you misquoted it too ). This Law says:

"Every effect must have a cause."
but NOT:
"Everything must have a cause".

In its correct form it does not exclude the possibility of having a first cause or "engine" as felicissimus said. A first cause is not an effect, therefore it is above the Law of Causality.

Wikipedia wasn't very helpful but I'll check at home I have a book that goes into this law in some detail.

[Simetrical]

"Every effect must have a cause."
but NOT:
"Everything must have a cause".

That's still not a valid logical assumption. There's no grounding for it other than intuition.

[Metellus]

That's still not a valid logical assumption. There's no grounding for it other than intuition.

I don't see how its not logical to assume that every effect must have a cause. Its certainly observable, for one thing. An infinite regression defies quantification, is unimaginable, irrational and unintuitive. If you applied Occam's Razor (which is by no means a hard law, really just a rule of thumb) to an effect that you observed (for example, the universe, one big effect), you'd ask "what's the simplest explanation here? Well, something must have caused the universe." Its infinitely more complex to attempt to prove an infinite regression.

The Law of Causality comes from Aristotle, btw.

[Felixion]

Basically speaking, the universe is so massively, hugely, incomprehensibly big that pondering it will do little more than give you a headache. It's my belief that the human brain does not allow us to actually grasp the size of the universe.

[felicissimus]

Fine help Metellus but i didn't say "everything must have" ,i said "everything in this world must have"."This world" is a category known to or supposed by man ,but the first cause lies beyond or above the cathegory because is unknown and unconceivable.You can only make some progress to it by logic it's not in our sphere of things
p.s. sorry for the english maybe not quite clear,but am not english or am.
Ah,Simetrical don't go the ways around.When i said that i got only sketches,figures and tables i meant there is no PHOTOGRAPHS of fossiles; Of course i didn't want to observe the fossiles personally,but a nice photo is a good and clear evidence,ain't it ?

[Simetrical]

I don't see how its not logical to assume that every effect must have a cause.

It is not implied by the axioms of logic (which are themselves debatable, by the way). It's an empirical assertion. Therefore, it must be substantiated by observations.

Its certainly observable, for one thing.

Okay, fine. Different assertion. I would disagree that it's observable, but suppose it is. Then why does the first cause have to be God? Why can't it be, say, the Big Bang?

An infinite regression defies quantification, is unimaginable, irrational and unintuitive.

Entirely false, except for the "unintuitive" aspect (which I have already agreed to). Mathematicians deal with infinite regressions on a constant basis. They are easy to deal with. No observed law of physics would be broken by an infinite succession of causes. Force could still equal mass times acceleration, each force could still have an equal and opposite force, and so on.

If you applied Occam's Razor (which is by no means a hard law, really just a rule of thumb) to an effect that you observed (for example, the universe, one big effect), you'd ask "what's the simplest explanation here? Well, something must have caused the universe." Its infinitely more complex to attempt to prove an infinite regression.

Nonsense. There is no complexity added to the laws of nature by having an infinite universe. Occam's Razor deals with complexity of explanation, not complexity of predictions. There are perhaps, as I recall, twenty or thirty equations that current physical models suggest describe the entire universe completely. None of those would be eliminated or simplified by the assumption that the universe had a beginning.

Ah,Simetrical don't go the ways around.When i said that i got only sketches,figures and tables i meant there is no PHOTOGRAPHS of fossiles; Of course i didn't want to observe the fossiles personally,but a nice photo is a good and clear evidence,ain't it ?

It gave many precise names. You could have tried Googling for them. This page has a succession of fossil images starting about a third of the way down, for instance. Of course, non-archeologists may have a hard time seeing the feathers, since we aren't used to looking for such subtle things, but in some shots they look pretty obvious, like this one:

[Silent Observer]

Hey, symetrical, you done the philosophy degree? You can do your philosophical dissing with panache and large words. Love it.

Yea, i reckon the main problem is our perception....the old..."how do we know what were seeing is correct?" Basically we have 5 senses (maybe more) an there will be so many more mediums by which we cant percieve. These would help us understand what were not seeing just now. Its a bit of a lost cause, unless you believe in maths.

The only help i can offer is that the pattern of the universe follows the shape of our solar system...a circle with a smaller bit in the middle. Consider....the shape of a galaxy, the solar system, our planet with it's moon, cells and nuclei, atomic composition, they even reckon strings are circular like donuts. Apparently string theory doesn't work...my guess is theres another smaller circle at the centre.
Correct my mistakes

[felicissimus]

Simetrical ,the first cause cannot be Big Bang because it's material.And the material things have start in time .The start-in-time things always have a cause.Got it or you suggest they created themselves ?

And this photo is well known to me.It's a SIMPLE bird that pretty well exist nowadays.I don't see signs of two species in it.It can be even a turkey or smth.

And besides the evolution suggests INTENTIONAL CHANGE IN SPECIES in generations.How can this evolution exist when no animal knew about these changes,did not intend them to happen and even is not aware of its beeing ?!! Then we come to a reasonable cause out of animal world to have intended them.Because the evolutionists in your site say:"the posterior species were better fitted and intended to fly than previous".If no animal knows what is BETTER and what WORSE how can they have intended these so complex improvements ? Or you suggest birds drew conclusions and were reasonable ? That cannot be.They know everything by instinct that God has put in them,e.g to eat and reproduct ,to run and walk,to fear and escape...

[Metellus]

It's an empirical assertion. Therefore, it must be substantiated by observations.

Yes, it is an empirical assertion, and substantiated by so very many observations. In fact so many that I'll ask you to prove that its not the case...

The fact that you (I presume, safely I hope) put intuitive trust in the law when you flick a light switch is simply good enough for me. There will always be room to debate anything in philosophy, because we'll never know everything about everything. But the fact is, if you didn't have cause to believe this law on some level, you wouldn't function as a human being at all. You wouldn't be typing on a keyboard because you'd be doubting whether such an action would produce some kind of message. To place such implicit trust in this law and at the same time be so vocal in suggesting that its flawed, strikes me as irrational.

Okay, fine. Different assertion. I would disagree that it's observable, but suppose it is. Then why does the first cause have to be God? Why can't it be, say, the Big Bang?

Well that's semantical on one level I think. I could call God the Big Bang then. But if you take the Big Bang itself, that's not an intelligence of any kind. That is still, quite obviously, an effect. A first cause would have to be something intelligent, in order to give rise to a Big Bang that would give rise to a universe that would give rise to intelligent beings. How can something intelligent (us) come from nothing? Doesn't make logical sense. Yes its not intuitive either, but intuition is just a feeling you get in the pit of your stomach. Logic is a stepwise progression of some sort, each stage following in some coherent way from the one before.

Entirely false, except for the "unintuitive" aspect (which I have already agreed to). Mathematicians deal with infinite regressions on a constant basis. They are easy to deal with. No observed law of physics would be broken by an infinite succession of causes. Force could still equal mass times acceleration, each force could still have an equal and opposite force, and so on.

Well firstly infinity does defy quantification, that is a formal truth about infinity (i.e. a truth "by definition") that is impossible to argue. Its like the oft-quoted "all bachelors are unmarried men".

Secondly, I cannot "imagine" infinity, that is to say I cannot "hold" a mental picture of infinity in my head as I would the mental picture of a chair, for example. I cannot imagine it, just like I cannot imagine a hypercube. Yes I can imagine "something that goes on forever", but I cannot imagine something that exists in an infinite state right now. Lets test this: if you were to call out "chair" I would instantly have a mental picture of a varnished wooden antique chair with red cushions, for example. Now, if you called out "infinity", all I would be capable of imagining would be some sort of "bubble" encompassing a very big space. But I cannot visualise infinity better than that, and I doubt it is different for others. This is why I say "unimaginable".

Irrational because, for example, an infinite space means there is an infinite chance of absolutely anything happening anywhere within that space. The chances are infinitely high. We'd be living in a universe where the fundamental rules that govern it would always be changing just because they can. We'd have aliens turning up on our doorstep all the time as well. Its kind of like the (albeit flawed) question that one early astronomer asked when he looked up at the stars: he said that if the universe is indeed infinite, why does the light from all these uncountable stars not completely fill the sky with blinding light?

Nonsense. There is no complexity added to the laws of nature by having an infinite universe. Occam's Razor deals with complexity of explanation, not complexity of predictions. There are perhaps, as I recall, twenty or thirty equations that current physical models suggest describe the entire universe completely. None of those would be eliminated or simplified by the assumption that the universe had a beginning.

Quite right on the complexity of explanation, as I said its just a rule-of-thumb anyway. But these equations, do they describe everything about the universe completely, or are they just fundamentals like gravity, thermodynamics and the like? Can I take one of these equations and use them to predict what will happen a thousand years from now? Anyway please elaborate on what equations exactly you are talking about

[Simetrical]

Yea, i reckon the main problem is our perception....the old..."how do we know what were seeing is correct?" Basically we have 5 senses (maybe more) an there will be so many more mediums by which we cant percieve. These would help us understand what were not seeing just now. Its a bit of a lost cause, unless you believe in maths.

There are, of course, hard limits on our understanding of the universe (predictive capabilities).

The only help i can offer is that the pattern of the universe follows the shape of our solar system...a circle with a smaller bit in the middle. Consider....the shape of a galaxy, the solar system, our planet with it's moon, cells and nuclei, atomic composition, they even reckon strings are circular like donuts. Apparently string theory doesn't work...my guess is theres another smaller circle at the centre.
Correct my mistakes

Uh . . . rather . . . simplistic? Circular motion is fairly simple: you just need some initial velocity and a perpendicular centripetal force of appropriate magnitude. So it's not surprising it crops up often. So do straight-line, elliptic, parabolic, and hyperbolic motion. That covers all second-degree equations, so from there it starts getting more complicated.

Simetrical ,the first cause cannot be Big Bang because it's material.And the material things have start in time .

How do you know this?

Got it or you suggest they created themselves ?

Tsk, I suggested it was a first cause. Thus nothing created it.

And this photo is well known to me.It's a SIMPLE bird that pretty well exist nowadays.I don't see signs of two species in it.It can be even a turkey or smth.

Uh, have you looked at the skeleton of a turkey? Compare:


Birds have no tail bones; reptiles do. Its posture is also very different. There are other examples. Look at Caudipteryx:

Pretty reptilian, of course. Look at a closeup of one of its limbs:

Feathers.

And besides the evolution suggests INTENTIONAL CHANGE IN SPECIES in generations.

What? Who told you anything about "intentional"?

If no animal knows what is BETTER and what WORSE how can they have intended these so complex improvements ?

They did not intend them. It might be a good idea to read up a little on natural selection (you can follow the links in the lower left to get it in your native language, of course). The idea of natural selection is

1. Living things pass on many of their traits to their descendants,
2. Occasional mutations occur that are then passed on if the creature reproduces, and
3. If the mutation happens to be beneficial, the creature will be more likely to reproduce than unmutated creatures, and will eventually be likely to outcompete them and take over.

So the reptile that was becoming a bird didn't know anything about the advantages of feathers. But one reptile, by simple chance mutation, happened to develop some very crude proto-feathers. These kept it a bit warmer, so it survived better and passed the feathers to its descendants. They then developed further. And so on.

The fact that you (I presume, safely I hope) put intuitive trust in the law when you flick a light switch is simply good enough for me.

I never denied that some things have causes. But some things don't. This is clearly true in, for instance, quantum mechanics. Besides, there's no denial of causality in postulating an infinite chain of causality.

But if you take the Big Bang itself, that's not an intelligence of any kind. That is still, quite obviously, an effect. A first cause would have to be something intelligent, in order to give rise to a Big Bang that would give rise to a universe that would give rise to intelligent beings.

Again, you're making assumptions. Why does intelligence have to cause intelligence? Why can't it have arisen from a slightly lesser intelligence, which arose from a slightly lesser intelligence, all the way down until a very very slight intelligence arose from no intelligence at all? It's easy to construct something that will respond to rudimentary stimuli, from entirely inert substances. From there you just have to get it to respond with more and more complexity, and eventually you'll have true intelligence.

Well firstly infinity does defy quantification, that is a formal truth about infinity (i.e. a truth "by definition") that is impossible to argue. Its like the oft-quoted "all bachelors are unmarried men".

I don't follow. It's impossible to argue with any mathematics, because it all follows from axioms.

Secondly, I cannot "imagine" infinity, that is to say I cannot "hold" a mental picture of infinity in my head as I would the mental picture of a chair, for example. I cannot imagine it, just like I cannot imagine a hypercube. Yes I can imagine "something that goes on forever", but I cannot imagine something that exists in an infinite state right now.

By that logic, you also can't imagine truth, or justice, or love, or a soul, or anything else immaterial.

Irrational because, for example, an infinite space means there is an infinite chance of absolutely anything happening anywhere within that space. The chances are infinitely high.

Not true. First of all, there's no such thing as an infinite probability (probability ranges from zero to one). More importantly, many things can conclusively be proven not to exist in a given infinite space. For instance, it can be proven that no natural number n exists such that 2n = 7. Infinity can be regulated by laws just as much as anything else. Many things are as impossible in an infinite space as in a finite one.

Let me ask, have you taken calculus courses? It's really necessary to know some calculus to begin to properly understand infinity.

Its kind of like the (albeit flawed) question that one early astronomer asked when he looked up at the stars: he said that if the universe is indeed infinite, why does the light from all these uncountable stars not completely fill the sky with blinding light?

Because it falls off too fast. If you have an infinite number of points emitting light, and the amount of light you can see from any point that's x distance away from you is equal to k/x² (it is: the intensity of light falls off proportional to the square of the distance), you will see only a finite amount of light, provided constant light-source density (or at least light-source density that doesn't increase as you go further out).

I can give you a one-dimensional example to prove my point. Say that you're at the end of a ray (a line that starts at a point and goes off infinitely), and every inch along the ray is a light that emits one lumen divided by ten to the power of its distance from you. Now, how much light will you see? From the first, you'll see one lumen divided by 10¹, i.e., a tenth of a lumen. From the second, you'll see a hundredth of a lumen, plus a tenth of a lumen from the first, for a total of 0.11 lumen. From the third, you'll see a thousandth of a lumen, for 0.111 lumens total.

As you can see, this pattern will go on forever: even if there are infinite lights, you'll only see a total intensity of 0.11111111... lumens, i.e., a ninth of a lumen. An infinite number of lights produce a finite amount of light. (I promise you that the same holds true if it decreases by the square of the distance, in which case you'll see a total of exactly π²/6 = 1.6449... lumens, but that's harder to see and in any case is irrelevant.)

But these equations, do they describe everything about the universe completely, or are they just fundamentals like gravity, thermodynamics and the like? Can I take one of these equations and use them to predict what will happen a thousand years from now? Anyway please elaborate on what equations exactly you are talking about

If you knew the exact state of absolutely everything at a given point in time, you could in theory predict what absolutely everything would look like a thousand years later, yes, except that 1) it's proven impossible to know absolutely everything about a particle's state, 2) we know that our current theories are imprecise, and 3) some of the equations predict complete randomness, which would mean that you'd only be able to make a probabilistic prediction (which would nevertheless, in theory, be correct).

For a list of laws currently treated as fundamental, you can see (for instance) this Wikipedia article.

[Metellus]

What? Who told you anything about "intentional"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by felicissimus
If no animal knows what is BETTER and what WORSE how can they have intended these so complex improvements ?

They did not intend them. It might be a good idea to read up a little on natural selection (you can follow the links in the lower left to get it in your native language, of course). The idea of natural selection is
Living things pass on many of their traits to their descendants,
Occasional mutations occur that are then passed on if the creature reproduces, and
If the mutation happens to be beneficial, the creature will be more likely to reproduce than unmutated creatures, and will eventually be likely to outcompete them and take over.

I quite agree with Simetrical here, evolution need not be directed. In fact its proven by simple random mutation over time. As to whether there is actually enough earth history to rubic-cube a reptile into a bird in this manner, I'm not qualified to say, but the evolutionists seem to think so. Personally as a christian and a believer in natural selection (at least, I hesitate to call it evolution because in today's parlance that can mean anything) I'm not particularly worried about how creatures evolved. If it happened the way the Creationists figure, great. If the Evolutionists are right (to whatever degree, there are plenty of grades of evolutionary 'belief'), then also fine. But there is sufficient doubt in evolutionary theory to consider it an emerging theory which is still undergoing a lot of growth and change. Personally I also hate the extreme creationist view because it denies so much of what we observe on a micro scale in the world of nature today.

I never denied that some things have causes. But some things don't. This is clearly true in, for instance, quantum mechanics.

Perhaps quantum mechanics just hasn't found the causes? As a scientist and a believer in the (so far) inviolability of the Law of Causality I'd be proceeding with that idea in my head. If I were a scientist, of course

Besides, there's no denial of causality in postulating an infinite chain of causality.

No there isn't, if you consider everything to be an effect, then the Law is happy with you.

I don't follow. It's impossible to argue with any mathematics, because it all follows from axioms.

Well, take for example the statement that "all bachelors are unmarried men". The statement is inherently true because the element of truth lies in the definition of the words. We know all bachelors are by definition unmarried men, so we can say that by definition "all bachelors are unmarried men". Its like saying "all unmarried men are unmarried men". Its an intrinsic truth (my little philosophy book calls that a "formal" truth). Same with infinity. It is by definition unquantifiable, boundless, etc. because that's part of the definition of it. I would go so far as to say that to state "infinity does not exist" is itself a formal truth, because "unquantifiable" is a simile for "nonexistent" but I think that would lead me to the brink of a really big and murky semantic sea.

Again, you're making assumptions. Why does intelligence have to cause intelligence? Why can't it have arisen from a slightly lesser intelligence, which arose from a slightly lesser intelligence, all the way down until a very very slight intelligence arose from no intelligence at all? It's easy to construct something that will respond to rudimentary stimuli, from entirely inert substances. From there you just have to get it to respond with more and more complexity, and eventually you'll have true intelligence.

I see your line of reasoning, short of writing a positively huge essay on why I disagree (I'm seeing my response in my thoughts but its difficult to put into words), I'll say that on a metaphysical level I find that idea very unacceptable. I just can't accept the possibility that such a hugely complex system like the universe evolved, essentially, out of soup. But I do believe that's about as far as we're capable of thinking as human beings, I don't think personally we'll ever find the answer to that question with science or philosophy.

By that logic, you also can't imagine truth, or justice, or love, or a soul, or anything else immaterial.

But while I cannot see love etc. physically, I do have a sound 'metaphysical' (for want of a better word) grasp of what it is. It is easy to visualise love, I just visualise an example of it in action. My imagination isn't limited only to physical objects, but abstract ones as well.

Not true. First of all, there's no such thing as an infinite probability (probability ranges from zero to one). More importantly, many things can conclusively be proven not to exist in a given infinite space. For instance, it can be proven that no natural number n exists such that 2n = 7. Infinity can be regulated by laws just as much as anything else. Many things are as impossible in an infinite space as in a finite one.

Let me ask, have you taken calculus courses? It's really necessary to know some calculus to begin to properly understand infinity.

Nope I didn't take calculus back in the day (probably the only aspect of maths I actually miss!) it doesn't take all that much to understand infinity. Fortunately simple logic rarely fails though

I do agree that even in infinity, no n number exists such that 2n = 7 but we're getting snagged on maths here (or at least I think so!). Mathematicians think that since they invented this number system, they suddenly can explain how, since infinity is perfectly plausible in mathematics, suddenly its perfectly plausible in reality. This is probably better in another thread, but I don't believe maths is really adequate to explain the reality of an infinite thing. I am not finding some roundabout way to disprove the 2n=7 idea, just to say that mathematics is an approximation (albeit a very good one) of how the universe is, but all you're doing is using maths to prove that mathematical infinity can be a reality. Kind of like using the Bible to prove that the Bible is true.

However if you look at it without maths, okay lets take this really into a storylike setting. In an infinite universe, what's to suggest there isn't somewhere out there, an uber powerful alien race that can move from point to point instantaneously, is utterly evil and ready to conquer us with a huge armada right now? Surely the possibility of such a situation is infinitely high? I agree that 2n = 7 doesn't work in infinity, but perhaps only because this is a formal truth, like the above, simply because as mathematics has defined it, such numbers are incapable of finding a natural number n?

Mathematics is a human construction. Just because mathematics can prove how something could exist in theory, doesn't mean that we should assume that all mathematically provable things actually exist. Well I'm going on a bit of a tangent here, but all I'm really saying is that mathematics isn't some sort of "one-stop-shop" that gives infinity "a life" as it were, just because mathematics proves that infinity can exist in theory.

Because it falls off too fast. If you have an infinite number of points emitting light, and the amount of light you can see from any point that's x distance away from you is equal to k/x² (it is: the intensity of light falls off proportional to the square of the distance), you will see only a finite amount of light, provided constant light-source density (or at least light-source density that doesn't increase as you go further out).

I can give you a one-dimensional example to prove my point. Say that you're at the end of a ray (a line that starts at a point and goes off infinitely), and every inch along the ray is a light that emits one lumen divided by ten to the power of its distance from you. Now, how much light will you see? From the first, you'll see one lumen divided by 101, i.e., a tenth of a lumen. From the second, you'll see a hundredth of a lumen, plus a tenth of a lumen from the first, for a total of 0.11 lumen. From the third, you'll see a thousandth of a lumen, for 0.111 lumens total.

As you can see, this pattern will go on forever: even if there are infinite lights, you'll only see a total intensity of 0.11111111... lumens, i.e., a ninth of a lumen. An infinite number of lights produce a finite amount of light. (I promise you that the same holds true if it decreases by the square of the distance, in which case you'll see a total of exactly π²/6 = 1.6449... lumens, but that's harder to see and in any case is irrelevant.)

Thanks for the explanation, I did understand why the astronomer's idea was flawed, now I understand it better . Thing is, I was trying to prove my 'infinite chance of anything happening' idea with an albeit flawed theory of infinite bright starlight. I've had an interesting thought though, would an uber alien race be able to jump utterly enormous distance to our earth that the 'distance of their unlikelihood' creates between us and them?

If you knew the exact state of absolutely everything at a given point in time, you could in theory predict what absolutely everything would look like a thousand years later, yes, except that 1) it's proven impossible to know absolutely everything about a particle's state, 2) we know that our current theories are imprecise, and 3) some of the equations predict complete randomness, which would mean that you'd only be able to make a probabilistic prediction (which would nevertheless, in theory, be correct).

For a list of laws currently treated as fundamental, you can see (for instance) this Wikipedia article.

Okay so you were talking about the fundamental scientific laws. I have to disagree with you though when you say that they "describe the universe completely". Yes they describe the universe as we know it, exceptionally well, but who is to say that some or all of them might not be superceded by new or more accurate laws in future? I don't think our simple laws are of any use in postulating whether the universe is infinite or not.