From: Hermit (hidden@lucifer.com)
Date: Wed Mar 27 2002 - 19:18:14 MST
[athenonrex 1]
[hermit 2]
[athenonrex 3]
[hermit 4]
[athenonrex 5]
[b][hermit 6] [/b]
[hr]
[hermit 2] Anything \"outside of time\" is by definition \"outside our Universe\" except as an imaginary object. Nothing \"outside our Universe\" can, by definition, interact with anything \"inside our Universe\"
[athenonrex 3] how do you know, you ever been outside of this universe? who\'s to say there aren\'t beings (godly or not, you decide) that can jump from universe to universe in a sea of multi verses which is really a megaverse?
[Hermit 4] This is a particularly poor argument. One does not have to be a rapist to condemn rapists, nor to have been somewhere to be able to discuss it or things about it.
[Hermit 4] In any case, I can discuss it without having been outside the Universe. From Special Relativity, we know that our Universe has consistent laws. Thus without rescinding Special Relativity, we know that anything within our Universe is subject to the same laws - including the laws relating to energy, QM and information. Thus, if something can interact with our Universe (even \"just\" information), then it must be exchanging energy with our Universe. Thus, it is, by definition, in our Universe.
[Hermit 6] Space-time are indistinguishable. You cannot seperate them. When you attempt to you come up with models which don\'t match what we know about the Universe. Bear in mind that we already know an awful lot about it.
[athenonrex 5] how many times has science determined that *this* or *that* is a universal constant or law, only for it to be disproven later?
[Hermit 6] This is how science advances. It is not a drawback at all, but a benefit. Refer to [url=http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=31&action=display&threadid=11535ith and truth in science[/url]. Popperian falsifiability ensures that we cannot absolutely prove anything. But we can disprove things absolutely. Until something is disproved, we work with it. All current standard (or consensus) models assume a Universe where the laws are the same in every congruent inertial frame. Everything we have observed to date confirms this. The likelihood that this will change is infistisimal, as it would mean rewriting an immense amount of very basic science.
[athenonrex 5] all i\'m saying (in essence) is there are no \"absolutes\" (which, i suppose, is a self-negating concept).
[Hermit 6] The fact that something is possible, does not, in any way, shape or form make it probable. You are trying to argue with two-valued logic, things which are probabilities with an infinite scale of truth value.
[athenonrex 5] i\'m also trying to convey that our minds are incapable of computing the whole of the universe, which allows us to come up with these universal constants that often are disproven.
[athenonrex 3] i stated that there were no definite answers at the beginning of this thread. that this was supposed to be speculation, that\'s [i]why[/i] it\'s so fun.
[Hermit 4] Avoid investing too much energy in fun which contravenes well established laws. There are so many fun areas which don\'t. Any of which is likely to be more profitable.
[athenonrex 5] profitable by who\'s standards? what i search for in life, what really turns me on, gets me pumped, throws my nose to the grindstone could and most likely is completely different than what does it for you. come on, hermit. you know that don\'t you?
[Hermit 6] Of course. But in science (and philosophy) profitable simply means useful for making validatable predictions. If you cannot make predictions with what you come up with, then you have nothing, as it cannot, even in principle, be invalidated and thus has no substance whatsoever.
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=16;action=display;threadid=11635>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:45 MDT