Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: Necrosis on December 24, 2011, 07:52:17 AM
-
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-year-old-puzzle-superstring-theory-supercomputer.html
A 40-year-old puzzle of superstring theory solved by supercomputer
December 23, 2011
A group of three researchers from KEK, Shizuoka University and Osaka University has for the first time revealed the way our universe was born with 3 spatial dimensions from 10-dimensional superstring theory in which spacetime has 9 spatial directions and 1 temporal direction. This result was obtained by numerical simulation on a supercomputer.
-
God Damnit
-
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-year-old-puzzle-superstring-theory-supercomputer.html
A 40-year-old puzzle of superstring theory solved by supercomputer
December 23, 2011
A group of three researchers from KEK, Shizuoka University and Osaka University has for the first time revealed the way our universe was born with 3 spatial dimensions from 10-dimensional superstring theory in which spacetime has 9 spatial directions and 1 temporal direction. This result was obtained by numerical simulation on a supercomputer.
As Cartman once said... "Science be praised!"
As I have so often heard from a friend that is Christian... "No one really knows until they die and the dead aren't talking."
-
Lol @ a computer simulation.
I think that it may give clearer insight into what happened at the begining of the universe as we know it, but it hasnt "solved" how it began.
Its a computer simulation. Its still bound by what we as humans know. And we still cant comprehend such things.
(This post has nothing to do with god or religion btw)
-
God Michet
-
I wish someday i'll understand string theory , I have to wait 5years atleast
physic is very exciting , seriously
-
8) Randell Tex Cobb could take it never went down could it be him? Don King there for the cash and a haircut.
-
Lol @ a computer simulation.
I think that it may give clearer insight into what happened at the begining of the universe as we know it, but it hasnt "solved" how it began.
Its a computer simulation. Its still bound by what we as humans know. And we still cant comprehend such things.
(This post has nothing to do with god or religion btw)
your statement while logical consistent seems to suffer from something called self-defeating argumentation. Since you hinted at there are things we cant know or do not know thus making this simulation unaccurate is contradictory in nature because you cannot say anything about these unknowns because you are a human and thus are bound by what humans know. What you are stating is pure conjecture based on faulty logic and poopy axioms unfit for my eyes take away this mental midget who proclaims there are things we cannot know because we are human yet he knows this whilst being a human, the same species he is talking about.
Fail do not pass go suck my anus.
-
your right necrosis. we cant know.
and we still dont.
3 thousand years ago we couldnt explain anything. today, we still cant.
caveman= what causes wind? -> we dont know, but possibly God
modern day scientist= what causes wind? ->earth rotation -> gravity -> we dont know, but possibly God
caveman= where did everything come from -> we dont know, but possibly God
modern day scientist= where did everything come from -> big bang -> we dont know, but possibly god
-
your right necrosis. we cant know.
and we still dont.
3 thousand years ago we couldnt explain anything. today, we still cant.
caveman= what causes wind? -> we dont know, but possibly God
modern day scientist= what causes wind? ->earth rotation -> gravity -> we dont know, but possibly God
caveman= where did everything come from -> we dont know, but possibly God
modern day scientist= where did everything come from -> big bang -> we dont know, but possibly god
are you suggesting we are no closer to truth then a caveman?
-
are you suggesting we are no closer to truth then a caveman?
maybe further away from it ;) :)
-
maybe further away from it ;) :)
i mean if you are suggesting ultimate meaning if one even exists, that an unfounded assumption in itself, then that is demonstrably false. We know that gods dont control the weather, that everything we have ever encountered requires no god.
-
Why argue with "tbombz"? He "bombed" at school and "bombed" at life, so everything he writes smells like a dirty bomb.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
May I remember everyone of this thread, where "tbombz" was destroyed and annihilated by yours truly, and all he could do in response was to manipulate semantics, use logical fallacies to make the debate circular and come up with straw man arguments misrepresenting my statements?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=398910.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=398910.0)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
May I remember everyone of this thread, where "tbombz" was destroyed and annihilated by yours truly, and all he could do in response was to manipulate semantics, use logical fallacies to make the debate circular and come up with straw man arguments misrepresenting my statements?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=398910.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=398910.0)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
what kind of asshole links to a 13 page thread without pointing to specific posts? ???
Anyway, interesting thread. They essentially solved a math problem lol. tdongz is referring to 'god of the gaps' which I see as a real cop-out. The problem with this approach is that as you uncover more knowledge and explanations for phenomena you have to adjust your arguments.
And here's a thread where I demolish the little bitch 'Necrosis' piece by piece:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=69359.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=69359.0)
-
i mean if you are suggesting ultimate meaning if one even exists, that an unfounded assumption in itself, then that is demonstrably false. We know that gods dont control the weather, that everything we have ever encountered requires no god.
there may be no cause for anything
but if there is a cause it lies behind that "?" that we will never be able to get past
the more we put in between us and that question mark, the farther we are away from the cause (truth), if such a thing exists
-
what kind of asshole links to a 13 page thread without pointing to specific posts? ???
Anyway, interesting thread. They essentially solved a math problem lol. tdongz is referring to 'god of the gaps' which I see as a real cop-out. The problem with this approach is that as you uncover more knowledge and explanations for phenomena you have to adjust your arguments.
And here's a thread where I demolish the little bitch 'Necrosis' piece by piece:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=69359.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=69359.0)
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
that link LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahahah
-
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
that link LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahahah
Im glad you were able to find the appropriatte posts 8)
-
Im glad you were able to find the appropriatte posts 8)
;D
-
Im glad you were able to find the appropriatte posts 8)
Hey dumbass, it's all posts. I have something like 10 exchanges with "tbombz" in that thread and the whole thread is interesting. Why should I point to specific posts? Read the whole thing, you illiterate towel head son of a bitch.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Hey dumbass, it's all posts. I have something like 10 exchanges with "tbombz" in that thread and the whole thread is interesting. Why should I point to specific posts? Read the whole thing, you illiterate towel head son of a bitch.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
LMAO calm down dude ;D
Happy new year to you ;)
-
Hey dumbass, it's all posts. I have something like 10 exchanges with "tbombz" in that thread and the whole thread is interesting. Why should I point to specific posts? Read the whole thing, you illiterate towel head son of a bitch.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
you cant prove "god" doesnt exist, and you sure as hell cant give a complete explanation for reality without a referance to "God", albeit such a referance would be an assumption,.. there may not be an explanation for existence however... but the atheist position, asserting no God exists, is as unproven as the assertion that God does exist. heres the rub.. only one of the two possibilties offers a logical solution to the reason for existence.
-
you cant prove "god" doesnt exist, and you sure as hell cant give a complete explanation for reality without a referance to "God", albeit such a referance would be an assumption,.. there may not be an explanation for existence however... but the atheist position, asserting no God exists, is as unproven as the assertion that God does exist. heres the rub.. only one of the two possibilties offers a logical solution to the reason for existence.
atheism makes no assertion just like aunicornists do not make any assertions, my position is i simply do not have a belief because there is no evidence to prove god exists just like i dont believe in unicorns.
you are making all these wild claims that frankly most intelligent people dismiss out of hand. Such as, you have to reference god to explain reality? really? so you think the best explanation for something is to use something we cant know or comment on to explain this other thing? it makes absolutely no sense, its in fact nonsense. You are suggesting using a more complex solution to a problem, if you reference god you then have more to explain then existence, you have a more complex problem. From your logic something complex requires a god to explain it (the universe in your example) yet you seem to exclude the most complex thing from this logic, ie god.
the fact that you think there are only two possibilities for existence is mind boggling. Its clearly false, so obviously false though, its so beyond wrong that a even someone as retarded as haidar could see it. so we have god, matter ie energy always existed, We are part of a multiverse, we are a computer program, we really dont exists etc etc etc etc.
god is a failed hypothesis get on board.
-
no, there really are only two possibilities.
think about it.
either, A) the universe, all of its potentialities, has always existed, will always exist, its cause and origin being completely unexplainable
or, B) "God" created it. "God" being a term for a supernatural creator of the universe. a diety that is as incomprehensible and as unexplainable as an uncaused universe, no more and no less. but in this situation it is not the universe that is unexplainable, its the diety that created it.
no other options.
Basically, God is the idea that there is indeed an explanation for the universe. Even though its something we can never understand ourselves, there is indeed some logic behind it.
-
no, there really are only two possibilities.
think about it.
either, A) the universe, all of its potentialities, has always existed, will always exist, its cause and origin being completely unexplainable
or, B) "God" created it. "God" being a term for a supernatural creator of the universe. a diety that is as incomprehensible and as unexplainable as an uncaused universe, no more and no less. but in this situation it is not the universe that is unexplainable, its the diety that created it.
no other options.
Basically, God is the idea that there is indeed an explanation for the universe. Even though its something we can never understand ourselves, there is indeed some logic behind it.
you seriously cant see the flaw in your logic here? those are the only two options?
-
come up with another option :)
remember, option A) is that the universe, as defined by its potentialities, has always existed
something may come from nothing, and if so, that is a potentialility of the universe
-
come up with another option :)
remember, option A) is that the universe, as defined by its potentialities, has always existed
something may come from nothing, and if so, that is a potentialility of the universe
you already ignored the bolded part of your options here. You want to have the explanation confined within the universes "potentialities" yet the other option you present is clearly not following that rule yet apparently its the only other option.
how about this is a computer program and we really do not exist at all. Maybe we are part of a multiverse in which the mother bubble or universe has physics of a very different nature which explains existence quite easily but we cannot access it (multiverse has more evidence then god mind you).
perhaps i am god, perhaps something occured that WE DO NOT KNOW?
you are making so many unfounded assumptions its absurd dude.You assume the universe is either self suficient or the only other option is a hypercomplex sentient being that existed before anything that creates things from nothing. That is a pretty big assumption based off no evidence other then a sense of belonging and desire for it to be true.
the argument you present is not logically consistent, it makes no sense at all.
perhaps the universe is eternal, perhaps string theory posits the solution to existence via extra dimensions we cant see, there are literally infinite numbers of possible outcomes, you god being no better then the infinite other hypotheses with no evidence.
-
all those infinite different possibilities are within the confines of an eternal universe of potentialities.
if there are 5 dimensions, ours stemming from one of them.. then those dimensions are part of the universe, and where di they come from? what caused their existence? quantum fluctuations that cause dimensions, strings, matter and energy to pop into existence from nothing? go back to the quantum fluctuation that created the dimensions and strings and mass-energy... go before that.. there existed the possibility for quantum fluctuations.. and that possibility always existed.
no matter what the origin and cause of the universe, it is eternal. it has always existed. or it was created at some time. if it just "popped" into existence, then that potential for things to "pop into existence" always existed. if it did not, what created that potential ? what created that ? ;)
maybe 60 trillion years ago 20 dimensions were popped into existence. our being one of them. before that there was nothing but the potential for something to pop into existence via quantum fluctuation or whatever. if you went back another 500 trillion years or so, there was most likely another 20 or 30 or 50 dimensions in which many universes existed and eventually dissapated into nothingness and pure energy. and before that, another few hundred trillion years of nothingness except for the potential for things to pop into existence... another universe.
no matter what the state of the universe, either it has always existed, or it was created at some time.
the question is, which makes more sense, an eternal and self caused universe, or an eternal being that created the universe? if you get out of the theological box and think of god more like a pantheist does, that the universe itself is God, having a mind of its own but no physical body except the power to cause things to exist and create life.. belief becomes easier.
the idea that life just popped into existence in a universe of lifeless mass-energy is a whole other conversation, but its one i feel is much much more conducive to realizing the most probable existence of God.
-
atheism makes no assertion just like aunicornists do not make any assertions, my position is i simply do not have a belief because there is no evidence to prove god exists just like i dont believe in unicorns.
you are making all these wild claims that frankly most intelligent people dismiss out of hand. Such as, you have to reference god to explain reality? really? so you think the best explanation for something is to use something we cant know or comment on to explain this other thing? it makes absolutely no sense, its in fact nonsense. You are suggesting using a more complex solution to a problem, if you reference god you then have more to explain then existence, you have a more complex problem. From your logic something complex requires a god to explain it (the universe in your example) yet you seem to exclude the most complex thing from this logic, ie god.
the fact that you think there are only two possibilities for existence is mind boggling. Its clearly false, so obviously false though, its so beyond wrong that a even someone as retarded as haidar could see it. so we have god, matter ie energy always existed, We are part of a multiverse, we are a computer program, we really dont exists etc etc etc etc.
god is a failed hypothesis get on board.
reported to mod >:( ;D
-
im still waiting for another possibilty.. :)
i repeat. only two possibilities=
A) created by incomprehensible Diety
or
B) completely incomprehensible in and of itself
-
all those infinite different possibilities are within the confines of an eternal universe of potentialities.
if there are 5 dimensions, ours stemming from one of them.. then those dimensions are part of the universe, and where di they come from? what caused their existence? quantum fluctuations that cause dimensions, strings, matter and energy to pop into existence from nothing? go back to the quantum fluctuation that created the dimensions and strings and mass-energy... go before that.. there existed the possibility for quantum fluctuations.. and that possibility always existed.
no matter what the origin and cause of the universe, it is eternal. it has always existed. or it was created at some time. if it just "popped" into existence, then that potential for things to "pop into existence" always existed. if it did not, what created that potential ? what created that ? ;)
maybe 60 trillion years ago 20 dimensions were popped into existence. our being one of them. before that there was nothing but the potential for something to pop into existence via quantum fluctuation or whatever. if you went back another 500 trillion years or so, there was most likely another 20 or 30 or 50 dimensions in which many universes existed and eventually dissapated into nothingness and pure energy. and before that, another few hundred trillion years of nothingness except for the potential for things to pop into existence... another universe.
no matter what the state of the universe, either it has always existed, or it was created at some time.
the question is, which makes more sense, an eternal and self caused universe, or an eternal being that created the universe? if you get out of the theological box and think of god more like a pantheist does, that the universe itself is God, having a mind of its own but no physical body except the power to cause things to exist and create life.. belief becomes easier.
the idea that life just popped into existence in a universe of lifeless mass-energy is a whole other conversation, but its one i feel is much much more conducive to realizing the most probable existence of God.
sure, what type of pantheism are you suggesting, it appears sentient so i assume its not actually pantheism you are suggesting, you are confusing pantheism with pandeism as you are not suggesting the buddhist stance or spin of the belief. Pantheism in an idealistic sense, is a type of consciousness that exists not sentience but instead it is the opposite of monist physicalistic pantheism.Pandeism makes the claim which exerts all is sentient, which is what you are suggesting i take it? that god is everything and this thing is a sentient being creating things, pantheism makes no claim like this.
also, from the post below are you talking about existence or our universe? because its likely that our universe is a son of another. If this is the case then it can be imagined that our logic may not apply is parent universe, that perhaps the laws of physics do not follow causation, as such, your question is irrelevant as you can only use your logic which could very well be constrained to this universe. You see you are making assumptions that do not exist or require your presuppose them. For example your question demands causality, you are saying this is here what created it, because you do not have the answer you claim something that needs no creator (god in your example) created it. You are skirting around the same old argument.
your grasp of the word eternal is also lacking, i do not mean this in a rude way, i like you :D but if the universe has always existed ie eternal it never was created, it has no creator, and it's essence like aquinas said is to exist. Also, causation is a macro physical problem, thus your question is based off experience at your level, which you deem is true reality, however, at the quantum world causation does not comply, thus your need for everything to be eternal or created by god is meaningless. THUS IF THE UNIVERSE IS ETERNAL THE POTENTIAL FOR IT TO EXIST NEVER EXISTED BECAUSE THERE WAS NEVER A STATE IN WHICH IT DID NOT EXIST, THUS, THE UNIVERSE REQUIRES NO CREATOR, IT REQUIRES NO EXPLANATION, IT HAS NO BEGINNING, NO END, NO REASON, PURPOSE OR CAUSE. Therefor i hold the position that energy is eternal (which converts to matter) and has always existed, hence matter can neither be created or destroyed, it always existed since it existed.
but say im in another universe, it could be matter pops into and out of existence for no reason, or cause, from no potential etc, that is just as likely in physics as matter not being able to be created.
-
im still waiting for another possibilty.. :)
i repeat. only two possibilities=
A) created by incomprehensible Diety
or
B) completely incomprehensible in and of itself
this is absurd, both are incomprehensible so to seperate them as two options when in fact they are the same exact thing is disingenous.
i could frame it this way
1) created by incomprehensible universe maker
2)created incomprehensible
because both things are incomprehensible, hence we can say absolutely nothing about them, you are just offering the same option twice, and that option is one of ignorance ie we cant know. You are in favor of trying to figure out things because they are incomprehensible, cave men probably said that about fire.
due to it being incomprehensible you have no idea if the uni requires a creator, or existed forever,or is a dream or doesnt even exist, etc because the end of your inquiry is the universe exists. You cant define an incomprehensible thing, you cant map it, describe or measure it thus calling it god or anything is ridiculous and the fact that you say it is sentient violates your rule that its incomprehensible,lol.
do you not see these drastic contradictions? seriously dont just reply, read my responses and think about them, people often argue just to argue, but these points can be rebutted, its not opinion, its fact and in logic facts cannot be disputed because they cannot be argued. The definition of incomprehensible is not up for debate, the only thing we can state is what it means, somethign is unknowable. Not something that is unknowable except i know its sentient or a being or my god.
-
"God who?"
^ title of thread
at least now your understanding that science does nothing to prove origin or cause ;)
I never said anything contradictory to your sentiment, which is that God is as unknowable as an eternal universe. and certainly we agree that we only have evidence of the universe, and not of God.. which makes agnostic athiesm more honest then theism, padiesm, or any kind of belief.
but i personally think that its much more plausible that everything was created by some kind of sentient being than just simply being self caused with no purpouse.
and there is nothing in science to make my opinion objectionable.
-
"God who?"
^ title of thread
at least now your understanding that science does nothing to prove origin or cause ;)
I never said anything contradictory to your sentiment, which is that God is as unknowable as an eternal universe. and certainly we agree that we only have evidence of the universe, and not of God.. which makes agnostic athiesm more honest then theism, padiesm, or any kind of belief.
but i personally think that its much more plausible that everything was created by some kind of sentient being than just simply being self caused with no purpouse.
and there is nothing in science to make my opinion objectionable.
obviously not but that now makes your statment that there are only two options false. You are missing one variable here, the option that the universe is knowable but we do not yet know, i believe this option has evidence for it since the universe behaves in a rational way, you are just ruling this option out when clearly it is not and is clearly the most plausible option.
the universe is comprehensible, you say that it came from incomprehensibility, which again is a contradiction. The reason why all these flaws are ripe in your logic my friend is because what you are saying is illogical and irrational, which people usually lump into one term that being faith. I have no faith, there in lies the difference, its what makes atheism a logical stance, one that says we don't have any evidence to believe in this.
if the universe is rational and it appears it is, knowable and it appears it is as we know more and more so called unknowable things, then science will say more about the universe then any thought game ever could. Science is a concept a concept and tool that extends human thought and knowledge beyond its scope, it allows us to understand things we could not without it's utility (microscopes and germs, particle accelerators) things that if not turned from the abstact to concrete, from the concept to the tool would be unknown. Thus to conclude that the universe is unknowable or its origin such causes one to ignore what science has taught us, that there is more then we can see, more then we can imagine, more then we can perceive thus unknowable should really be considered that which will be known for its definition, if history is any teacher.
You see what i described above is evidence, i dont have faith gravity will hold, i have evidence it will since it has never stopped working anywhere in the universe or on earth, the math and predictions in science are all consistent with its existence thus i have good evidence for my belief just like i do above. You have no evidence that the universe is unknowable, in fact that position is the negative and cant even be argued, thus you have faith that a sentient being created everything. You cant make an argument logical if its conclusion requires faith, thus your position holds no water, its pointless to suggest in fact.
-
you seem to be overlooking the foundations of science.
if science found out that X caused existence.
then what causes X? why does X behave the way it does? where did X come from?
:)
incomprehensible no matter what. ;)