The universe is a tale told by an idiot. | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (1)
big
...and 403 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614125
Today 4
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
The universe is a tale told by an idiot.
 

offline Dozier from United States on 2004-07-25 13:31 [#01286005]
Points: 2080 Status: Lurker | Followup to w M w: #01285992



well, unlike sound waves, which need a medium,
electromagnetic waves are self-propagating, they are in
essence their own medium.


 

offline Q4Z2X on 2004-07-25 13:31 [#01286006]
Points: 5264 Status: Lurker | Followup to Dozier: #01285957



well, if empty space doesn't exist, what's the difference
between you and all that "stuff" in between planets and
such? i know space has some matter floating around, and
things that we believe to be solid have a good deal of
"space" to them.. but it really doesn't make sense to me to
think that there could be matter, and not be an absence of
matter. it seems like the only thing to define matter, it's
something that IS.. but something needs to exist in order to
cease existing.. but that doesn't mean that everthing that
doesn't exist has to have existed in some way.. er...
like, you need to have lived in order to die.. darkness
needs to exist, in order for sunlight to mean anything.. but
it doesn't mean that the light wouldn't be anything if
that's all there was, it just means that there really needs
to be an absence of something for it to register in our
brains as being something and not nothing.. i guess those
are all just subjective human examples..
again, i don't know what i'm saying. maybe i just proved my
own point wrong..



 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-25 13:33 [#01286007]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



A confession of memetic unoriginality:
I merely stole the topic title from: shakespeare

and my 1st comment from The Skeptic


 

offline plaster from splitska 10 on 2004-07-25 13:33 [#01286008]
Points: 4173 Status: Regular



mmm...i consider space to be a huge molecular field.
the atoms are moving randomly thus creating a magnetic field
around the planes so they can rotate around their axis.
the same thing is with light...this energy wave that is
created by random patterns of atoms give the carrier to the
light.


 

offline Dozier from United States on 2004-07-25 13:36 [#01286010]
Points: 2080 Status: Lurker | Followup to Q4Z2X: #01286006



well, i think i agree with you. it's almost academic to talk
about the difference between something and nothing like
they're two distinct things. were you refering to how i
mentioned that empty space wasn't really empty? well, sure,
even if there are particles popping in and out of existence
there is still some space not occupied by matter, and so
there's still empty space. all i was really saying was that
all the vast tracts of so-called empty space appear to
infact not be as empty as was previously believed.


 

offline plaster from splitska 10 on 2004-07-25 13:37 [#01286012]
Points: 4173 Status: Regular



actually not just planets or light but the whole existance
as we know it.
just imagine the picture...u got massive amount of random
patterns that atoms create, and all of the sudden the
critical point arrives thus making the esential part we all
need.



 

offline Dozier from United States on 2004-07-25 13:42 [#01286020]
Points: 2080 Status: Lurker | Followup to plaster: #01286008



randomness is one of my favorite subjects to pontificate
about. can there really be any true randomness in the
universe. even if the uncertainty principle is accurate,
that does not require randomness, it just means we are
unable to dicern the information. and if randomness can not
exist, even if impossible due to the uncertainty principle,
then given enough computational power, wouldn't it be
theoretically possible to calculate ever single event that
would occur in the universe? personally, i don't see how
true randomness can exist.


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-25 13:43 [#01286022]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular | Followup to Q4Z2X: #01286006



hwo, thaTs kwewl


 

offline Q4Z2X on 2004-07-25 13:46 [#01286026]
Points: 5264 Status: Lurker



ah. i see. i agree with you, i think. or as much as it is
really possible to "agree" on ideas this shaky and
unfathomable.

but, i wonder, if something and nothing both exist, is there
a perfect balance between them?
if something were to be effectively destroyed in some way,
could that offset the eternal equilibrium of everything and
trigger the "destruction" of everything?

..maybe that's rhetorical....


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-25 13:47 [#01286028]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



ha ha, pontificate, a nicely chosen word. I pontificate that
only pseudorandomness exists. The perception of "randomness"
is more of a property of brains and other analytic engines
(um, I think I meant a different word) that observe/compute
the universe.


 

offline Dozier from United States on 2004-07-25 13:51 [#01286032]
Points: 2080 Status: Lurker | Followup to Q4Z2X: #01286026



ah. i see. i agree with you, i think. or as much as it
is really possible to "agree" on ideas this shaky and
unfathomable.


excellent way to put it.

i think you're falling into the trap of thinking of nothing
as something, a something different than the other
something. if the something were to be completely destroyed,
then all we'd have is nothing, which would then really be
undefined because there's nothing to define what it is. but,
how could the something (the matter and energy) be
completely destroyed? where would it go? unless it's all
'borrowed' from the nothing in matter/antimatter pairs which
then annihilate themselves. but then what? ah, i don't know.


 

offline plaster from splitska 10 on 2004-07-25 13:51 [#01286033]
Points: 4173 Status: Regular | Followup to Dozier: #01286020



well u got a point here...we aren't ready to concieve the
meaning of what we call "random".
it would only be a case of higher mental activity...then
again what is necassary to start using the higher percentage
than 10%???

so this is actually a deadend street.


 

offline Dozier from United States on 2004-07-25 13:51 [#01286034]
Points: 2080 Status: Lurker | Followup to w M w: #01286028



EXACTLY!!


 

offline Dozier from United States on 2004-07-25 13:53 [#01286036]
Points: 2080 Status: Lurker | Followup to plaster: #01286033



so this is actually a deadend street.

yeah, i basically agree with that, but it's sometimes still
fun and sometimes even feels worthwhile to talk about it.


 

offline plaster from splitska 10 on 2004-07-25 13:54 [#01286039]
Points: 4173 Status: Regular | Followup to Dozier: #01286032



this is what is all about...you came the the begnning point
while trying to explain urself.
it's all se evident


 

offline danbrusca from Derbyshire (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-25 13:54 [#01286040]
Points: 4570 Status: Lurker | Followup to Dozier: #01286020



Hmm, so here's a question. Does the absence of true
randomness therefore imply that *everything* is the result
of cause and effect?


 

offline plaster from splitska 10 on 2004-07-25 13:57 [#01286042]
Points: 4173 Status: Regular | Followup to danbrusca: #01286040



yeh,but what is needed to make the cause?


 

offline Dozier from United States on 2004-07-25 13:58 [#01286043]
Points: 2080 Status: Lurker



well, that's interesting because if there were no true
randomness and everything followed established physical laws
(that were mostly transparent to us, possibly), then how
much meaning would cause and effect have? i think the idea
of cause and effect are only useful when vivisecting reality
into smaller parts. and it's also akin to a child asking
"why?" repeatedly to an adult trying to answer a question.
eventually they would get down to the one true cause of
everything, and the one true effect is what is being, and
has been, played out throughout the universe. i wonder if
that makes sense to anyone except me?


 

offline Dozier from United States on 2004-07-25 14:00 [#01286044]
Points: 2080 Status: Lurker



randomness implies no real connection between one
cause/effect pair and another which itself gives rise to
multiple cause/effect pairs, but if there were no true
randomness, you couldn't look at it that way. right?


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-25 14:01 [#01286047]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



ha ha, except for the very first cause which was random.


 

offline Dozier from United States on 2004-07-25 14:03 [#01286049]
Points: 2080 Status: Lurker | Followup to w M w: #01286047



ah, yes, what do we do about that first cause? holy shit, i
think i just proved the existence of god! oops.


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-25 14:07 [#01286053]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



but, how could the something (the matter and energy) be
completely destroyed? where would it go?


That's interesting since it implies we have, say, exactly
37.6532 mass units and always will have that exact amount.
Why this particular amount? Is that ALL there is? (I don't
know anything about antimatter stuffamajig)

We'll evole artificial intelligences that will answer these
questions, but they still won't be able to reveal the answer
to us because our brains are too stupid and primitive to
understand.


 

offline Dozier from United States on 2004-07-25 14:10 [#01286054]
Points: 2080 Status: Lurker



We'll evole artificial intelligences that will answer
these questions, but they still won't be able to reveal the
answer to us because our brains are too stupid and primitive
to understand.


i doubt that, because they will be a part of the same
system, and will have the same limitations. essentially i
think that's the problem. if we could remove ourselves
outside of the universe to some other realm, then i think we
have the potential of fully understanding it, at least to
the degree we think we understand anything about it, but
it's because we are a part of (and a product of) what we're
studying that we can never know it fully.


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-25 14:11 [#01286055]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



Oh no, I have the most points on this page. I feel
embarrassed and pathetic.

Plus the artificial intelligences will be indifferent to the
answers and see no point in helping us understand, as well
as no point in continuing to exist and seek further answers.


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-25 14:17 [#01286059]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



I don't know... get a society of Super AI's together, each a
trillion times smarter than a human brain, and they might
just come up with some unprecedented ineffable unfathomably
wicked solutions like building, provided they had any
motivation (and I sort of doubt they would).


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-25 14:18 [#01286062]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



"like building..."

Oy heah... I sort of forgot to complete my thought before I
posted. I happens (to idiots). And it's just as well.


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-25 14:19 [#01286063]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



I'm ashamed to have posted seven thousand four hundred and
foryt five messages here.


 

offline Dozier from United States on 2004-07-25 14:28 [#01286073]
Points: 2080 Status: Lurker | Followup to w M w: #01286063



how do you feel about seven thousand four hundred and forty
six, and seven thousand four hundred and forty seven?


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-25 14:30 [#01286075]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



Those are better. I think 7445 was just the exact point of
my midlife crisis, which means I'll either be dead or stop
posting here by 14890.


 

offline danbrusca from Derbyshire (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-25 16:52 [#01286193]
Points: 4570 Status: Lurker | Followup to Dozier: #01286049



Well no, you haven't proven the existence of god, merely
fallen into the trap of not being able to explain something
and filling the gap with god. Sadly, mankind has fallen into
this trap many, many times over the centuries and that's why
religion is such a powerful influence on people today.


 

offline mappatazee from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2004-07-25 16:58 [#01286196]
Points: 14294 Status: Lurker | Followup to w M w: #01286075



I'll be there soon, mister w M w


 

offline danbrusca from Derbyshire (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-25 17:19 [#01286205]
Points: 4570 Status: Lurker | Followup to Dozier: #01286054



I think there will come a point where our knowledge of the
universe will be equal to the knowledge in the universe.
It's perhaps the ultimate destination of the evolutionary
process.

Our knowledge would give us the ability to experience
anything and everything simultaneously and continually and
also imply complete command of the mechanics of the
universe. The universe, the mind and time would be as one.

Perhaps that's how we got started out in the first place.
The inhabitants of the universe that came before us reached
such a state then something came along that disrupted it and
set off what we now know as the Big Bang. Or perhaps those
universal ancestors nearly reached that state, but
some tiny flaw threw everything into flux and that
set in train the events that have brought us here.

I think that latter point more likely. I guess that when
you're on the edge of an absolutely perfect state, the whole
system becomes more pricarious, the slightest thing that
goes wrong having the ability to completely wreck it all.


 

offline mappatazee from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2004-07-25 17:35 [#01286215]
Points: 14294 Status: Lurker | Followup to Dozier: #01286020



The universe is holistic; collapse of the wave function as
an example.


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2004-07-25 19:44 [#01286253]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker



talk about deja vu!

i KNOW i had this exact conversation at a sleepover in 1992.


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2004-07-25 19:46 [#01286254]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker | Followup to epohs: #01286253



[contextual note]

tone of voice is so hard to convey over the internet. that
post should have heaping helpings of lightheartedness
applied to it.

:)


 

offline -V- from Ensenada Drive on 2004-07-25 19:58 [#01286256]
Points: 1452 Status: Lurker



About a month ago, I ate something that made it so
everything I did was accompanied by extraordinarily strong
feeling of déjà vu. The feeling has since stopped, but I
still do not feel completely right again – it was the most
frightening thing I’ve ever felt.


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2004-07-25 20:05 [#01286259]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker | Followup to -V-: #01286256



i had the same thing happen to me once actually, and it was
intensely frightening.

the position of everyone and their actions, the lighting in
the rooms, my mood, what was being said, the time of day,
the fact that i was having deja vu... every single tiny
insignificant detail. it lasted for about 45 minutes until i
passed out. VERY intense.


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2004-07-25 20:06 [#01286260]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker | Followup to epohs: #01286259



kinda makes me feel wierd even thinking about it.


 

offline Q4Z2X on 2004-07-25 20:44 [#01286274]
Points: 5264 Status: Lurker



is the universe signifying nothing?


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-25 20:47 [#01286277]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular | Followup to danbrusca: #01286205



That'd make some fucking good science fiction, not that I
ever read science fiction anyway... and despite your
proposing it as a theory, not fiction.


 

offline Feld from surrey (Canada) on 2004-07-25 20:47 [#01286278]
Points: 89 Status: Regular



these conversations annoy me for some reason.
probably because i can't accept to hear it from you feeble
humans.


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2004-07-25 20:48 [#01286279]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker | Followup to Q4Z2X: #01286274



it's just a mathmatical equation.

we assign meaning to it so we don't feel so lonely.


 

offline mappatazee from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2004-07-25 21:23 [#01286289]
Points: 14294 Status: Lurker | Followup to Q4Z2X: #01286274



Why should it signify anything? After all, significance is
just a human invention, like sliced bread.

Deja Vu: on hallucinogens, I think it's like that "Whoa,
this seems oddly familiar" thing where everything is like an
intricate mystery that you're just trying to put your finger
on exactly _what_ it is. Also smoking weed I get deja vu
that I've seen every single television program and
commercial before; but it can't be true since I usually
didn't even watch television before hand for a while, and
when flipping channels, it's impossible that it could take
the exact same sequence of commercials/shows. I can't
predict what's going to happen next anyways, it's all in my
head.


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-25 21:24 [#01286290]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



Knuth is considered a famous programmer, known for his geek
humor: as examples, he pays a finder's fee of $2.56 for any
typos/mistakes discovered in his books because "256 pennies
is one hexadecimal dollar".


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-25 21:26 [#01286291]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



ha ha,
Version numbers of his TEX software approach ð, that is
versions increment in the style 3, 3.1, 3.14 and so on


 

offline mappatazee from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2004-07-25 21:26 [#01286292]
Points: 14294 Status: Lurker



There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary,
and those who don't.

(Old joke, I know, it's been here before)


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-25 21:26 [#01286293]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



approach (pie)


 

offline mappatazee from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2004-07-25 21:27 [#01286294]
Points: 14294 Status: Lurker | Followup to w M w: #01286291



what the fuck is ð? dalef?


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-25 21:28 [#01286296]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



without the e (I think). If that's not correct, I will post
no further comments about it. *sneezes*


 

offline mappatazee from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2004-07-25 21:28 [#01286297]
Points: 14294 Status: Lurker



nevermind, Latin Small Letter Eth
ð

fuckð thee, thou knavð, thou


 


Messageboard index