The Universe Is Not "Logical"

[jebckr]

Then let us logically think of what is logical. Then come to the conclusion that logic is illogical. From this, we exit the confounds of our minds and see logic from a more logical point of view.

???

 

[Sup3r 4ut03r]

Logic is creating the fact that the universe is the theory of infinity. Must I remind you infinity does not exist, it is a theory used to describe the evergrowing amount of something that will never stop growing. Such as, a dog. A dog's growth is not infinite. If infinity were for a small period of time, a dog's growth would be infinite for a small amount of time. Infinity is supposedly "forever" and can not and WILL not stop, as mathematicians provide for us. As we create new numbers, such as, someone needed to create 100 decidillion, we create new numbers everyday, and we use infinity to describe that fact. The universe has been going on for about...14.6 to 14.8 billion years. The Earth itself is much younger than that, and if we were in another galaxy, as Sythe says, time would be different, and it would not be 14.6 to 14.8 billion years ago the universe was created. It would be higher or lower depending on your exact coordinates in the universe. As the sun is 93 million miles away, it take around 4 and a half minutes for the light to come here. If the sun burnt out, which I personally think is plausible, considering that hydrogen nor helium in the sun is infinite, then it would take 4 and a half minutes for the darkness to reach earth. Also, many physics teachers say that there are an infinite amount of dimensions, saying that there is an infinite amount of possibilities in the whole entire entirety of the existence of everything. Saying that, in one dimension, Sythe could be chopping up his keyboard with a floppy carrot, and i love drugs would be ripping a wooden chair with his 6 extra hands he doesn't have in this dimension. I'm not trying to be funny, I'm dead serious. There are a finite amount of possibilities but the existence of everything must handle maybe everything that could ever happen in the universe at once.

 

[Sup3r 4ut03r]

Please do not spam in the intelligent board. It just...isn't right. I don't understand how the universe would be illogical. As I stated in my other post, physics teachers say that there are infinite dimensions, with infinite possibilities. If there was, maybe we started out from the dimension that had something that created the big bang. I personally believe that two dimension were closing in on eachother, and they collided. BIG BANG! New Universe.

 

I am not saying the universe is infinate as such i am saying it is expanding which has been proven i am pretty sure, so it can be measure, and measure again showing it is growing, which means it is expanding which in theory it had to have a begining e.g a big bang,

The assumption that present expansion means past explosion is flawed. Many things in nature oscillate between a high and a low. There is no reason to assume that an expansion presupposes an explosion. Especially given the flawed nature of our understanding of the forces at work. The mainstream theory of gravitation -- and of the nature of interactions between heavenly bodies -- concludes that 90% of the matter in the universe is invisible. Occam's razor suggests that the theory, and not the evidence, is wrong.

Real science is conservative. The big bang is a huge assumption, a huge leap of faith. And, worse, it presents dozens of unprovable hypotheses, making it virtually useless for any productive end.

The mere fact that we are ever expanding i think is evidence enough to show the universe is infinite because u cant expand into nothing.

Fallacy: Equivocation

The term 'universe' has been clearly defined in this thread as 'everything in existence', the term 'everything' referring to all matter.

Your use of the term 'universe' describes space. The implication of your statement is that space has properties of its own -- which it may. And therefore that space, or space-time, is distinct and different from absolute nothing (the absence of any thing). However space is generally defined as an absence of matter. To redefine space as a type of aether or universal-fabric is not invalid, except when the redefinition is undeclared. In which case it is a logical fallacy.

So really this debate is over the existence of an aether, and not the origin or state of matter in the universe.

Therefore, the arguments supporting the infinite size and scope of 'the universe' are actually arguments in support of an infinity large space-fabric, or aether, in which the matter and energy of the universe sit.

To these arguments I say: give me proof. Your claim is fantastic, certainly. But I will not accept it without evidence.

 

Logic is creating the fact that the universe is the theory of infinity. Must I remind you infinity does not exist, it is a theory used to describe the evergrowing amount of something that will never stop growing. Such as, a dog. A dog's growth is not infinite. If infinity were for a small period of time, a dog's growth would be infinite for a small amount of time. Infinity is supposedly "forever" and can not and WILL not stop, as mathematicians provide for us. As we create new numbers, such as, someone needed to create 100 decidillion, we create new numbers everyday, and we use infinity to describe that fact. The universe has been going on for about...14.6 to 14.8 billion years. The Earth itself is much younger than that, and if we were in another galaxy, as Sythe says, time would be different, and it would not be 14.6 to 14.8 billion years ago the universe was created. It would be higher or lower depending on your exact coordinates in the universe. As the sun is 93 million miles away, it take around 4 and a half minutes for the light to come here.

Estimates conclude 8 minutes for light to reach earth from the surface of the sun, due to the gravitational effect on light.

If the sun burnt out, which I personally think is plausible, considering that hydrogen nor helium in the sun is infinite, then it would take 4 and a half minutes for the darkness to reach earth.

That assumes current models of the sun are accurate, which they probably aren't. The nuclear fusion model, for instance, does not explain the sun's magnetic pole, or why it flips so frequently, or why the center of a sunspot is the coolest part.

Recently it was discovered that the northern lights are caused by solar wind traveling down magnetic ropes linking the earth to the sun, like the upper atmosphere is a lightbulb hooked to the sun -- an electrical connection.

Basically evidence strongly suggests that existing models of the sun are incorrect. Therefore any assumptions about the lifespan of the sun based on those models are also incorrect.

Also, many physics teachers say that there are an infinite amount of dimensions, saying that there is an infinite amount of possibilities in the whole entire entirety of the existence of everything. Saying that, in one dimension, Sythe could be chopping up his keyboard with a floppy carrot, and i love drugs would be ripping a wooden chair with his 6 extra hands he doesn't have in this dimension. I'm not trying to be funny, I'm dead serious. There are a finite amount of possibilities but the existence of everything must handle maybe everything that could ever happen in the universe at once.

Well all of that is idle and unscientific speculation. Unless evidence can be found to support the theory of dimensions beyond the four of which we already know, there is no reason to assume any others exist.

 

I don't understand how the universe would be illogical. As I stated in my other post, physics teachers say that there are infinite dimensions, with infinite possibilities. If there was, maybe we started out from the dimension that had something that created the big bang. I personally believe that two dimension were closing in on eachother, and they collided. BIG BANG! New Universe.

How do dimensions collide?

 

[Sup3r 4ut03r]

How do dimensions collide?

We don't know, that's what the word "Theory" is for. If we knew how dimensions create themselves, such as researching with the Large Hadron Collider, we would be able to know these facts. Simple enough, my theory is that dimensions bounce around in the existence of everything. Some sort of place where new dimensions are created, and others are destroyed. Somehow, one propelled itself into another, and created a new dimension. I have nothing to back this up, although, scientists are currently doing research on the subject. Just because I don't have enough evidence is enough to prove that I'm wrong, I know, but it's a theory, and that's what theories are for. The universe is most likely going to stop expanding sometime, therefore, it is not infinite. That is also a theory. You see what I'm getting at, Scythe? Theories are meant to be. I don't have any idea of how dimensions collide, it's in my theory. Something that is illogical can not be explained by logic. The infinity theory is logical. The universe is home to billions, maybe trillions or even quadrillions of galaxies. How does it hold all this? It has been expanding for over 14.6 billion years. That's how. What else about the universe cannot be explained by logic?



The·o·ry - 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis. - Taken from www.Dictionary.com

 

[Sup3r 4ut03r]

Estimates conclude 8 minutes for light to reach earth from the surface of the sun, due to the gravitational effect on light.

Also, light travels faster in a vacuum medium than in an air medium. I believe your estimation is incorrect. And there has been no proven fact that gravity has even a small amount of effect on light.

 

Also, light travels faster in a vacuum medium than in an air medium. I believe your estimation is incorrect. And there has been no proven fact that gravity has even a small amount of effect on light.

Its not my estimation, and, actually, it doesn't take gravity into account.

Using basic trigonometry the distance between the earth and the sun is approximately: 149,597,892 km.

Given that light travels at 299,792.458 km/s in a vacuum, light leaving the sun (ignoring and possible gravitational effects) should take approximately 500 seconds to reach the earth. 500 seconds being 8 minutes.

The effect of gravity on light is a separate issue. One which is very interesting. If you accept general relativity as being true (which it is hard not to) then you must accept gravitational lensing and gravitational redshift and blueshift.

 

[Mr Monkey]

I completely agree it is not logical, our idea of logicality can be summarized by nothing is just there, your just on the earth you were created by an existing thing, everything must have a creator in one way or another or events that lead to the moment of thing existing, nothing just HAPPENS.

 

I completely agree it is not logical, our idea of logicality can be summarized by nothing is just there, your just on the earth you were created by an existing thing, everything must have a creator in one way or another or events that lead to the moment of thing existing, nothing just HAPPENS.

Fallacy: appeal to repetition.
Reaffirming the original poster's claim does not improve the validity of that claim.

If you have something of value to add to the discussion then add it.

 

[oooviperooo]

Fallacy: False Dilemma:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

Fallacy: Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable
Fallacy: Appeal to complexity http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#complexity

Logic is not pulled from the aether. It is a set of rules discovered about reality. Thus one is not 'stuck inside' logic, but rather discovers that the universe conforms to a set of rules, and uses those rules to his own advantage.

We call these physical laws, the laws of logic, and the laws of mathematics.

No, it is not a fallacy. There are two options: A. The universe has always been or B. The universe was created and has a starting point. There are no other options or any other possibilities. So he is not using a fallacy, and neither of these options are logical. Therefore, logic cannot be used to prove everything.

 

No, it is not a fallacy. There are two options: A. The universe has always been or B. The universe was created and has a starting point. There are no other options or any other possibilities. So he is not using a fallacy, and neither of these options are logical. Therefore, logic cannot be used to prove everything.

That is a fallacy: False dilemma.
There are other options because your premises are not necessarily correct.

Secondly, the statement "logic cannot be used to prove anything" is a fundamental contradiction, and is therefore false.

"To prove" something is to present a solid proof of it. A proof is a collection of logical arguments which show something to be true, based on a fixed set of accepted assumptions (premises).

So, in fact, ONLY logic can be used to prove ANYTHING.

 

[oooviperooo]

There most certainly are NOT any other options. Either the universe has always been, or it has a starting point. Neither choice follows the rules of logic.

I said logic cannot be used to prove EVERYTHING, not ANYTHING.

 

There most certainly are NOT any other options. Either the universe has always been, or it has a starting point. Neither choice follows the rules of logic.

Paradoxes don't exist in reality. If you encounter a paradox, and your reasoning is sound, then your premises are at fault.

Now since you are so insistent I will demonstrate one way in which your premises may be incorrect.

One of your premises is that time is absolute and independent of all other things. But can this premise be shown to be true?

Time is an abstraction based on observable changes in matter. Or, more precisely, the comparison between observable changes in matter. Is there any evidence to suggest that time is independent of matter... that time can exist without matter?

If time is dependent on matter then an inquiry about the age of the universe is a causal fallacy. If matter is the cause of time then the question is void. Rather than always existing, one could say the existence of matter gives rise to the concept of time.

This is not necessarily true, but it demonstrates why the question is a false dilemma.

I said logic cannot be used to prove EVERYTHING, not ANYTHING.

You completely misunderstand. There can be no proof without logic. Because a proof entails the use of logic. Ok? There isn't such a thing as a proof without logic. A proof is a type of logical argument. You cannot have logic-less logic. Its a contradiction.

 

[oooviperooo]

Ha, yea I get it now. I should have used a different word than prove I guess. You win, as always.

 

[Sup3r 4ut03r]

nothing just HAPPENS.

That is not true. Cause and effect, right? No. Things can just happen. How would it rain in the middle of summer, with no clouds in the sky, and maybe even snow. That happened one day a couple of years ago. How does it hail in Florida? I don't know, but it happened.

 

[Sup3r 4ut03r]

Paradoxes don't exist in reality. If you encounter a paradox, and your reasoning is sound, then your premises are at fault.

Now since you are so insistent I will demonstrate one way in which your premises may be incorrect.

One of your premises is that time is absolute and independent of all other things. But can this premise be shown to be true?

Time is an abstraction based on observable changes in matter. Or, more precisely, the comparison between observable changes in matter. Is there any evidence to suggest that time is independent of matter... that time can exist without matter?

If time is dependent on matter then an inquiry about the age of the universe is a causal fallacy. If matter is the cause of time then the question is void. Rather than always existing, one could say the existence of matter gives rise to the concept of time.

This is not necessarily true, but it demonstrates why the question is a false dilemma.

You completely misunderstand. There can be no proof without logic. Because a proof entails the use of logic. Ok? There isn't such a thing as a proof without logic. A proof is a type of logical argument. You cannot have logic-less logic. Its a contradiction.

The problem is not time can't exist without matter, the problem is matter can't exist without time. If time did not exist, then nothing else would exist. If you stopped time, nothing else would ever happen, in this dimension, of course. I've made many calculations, and I've quadruple checked them. Put it on a timer, and, obviously, if time stopped, the timer wouldn't work nor would anything else.

 

The problem is not time can't exist without matter, the problem is matter can't exist without time. If time did not exist, then nothing else would exist. If you stopped time, nothing else would ever happen, in this dimension, of course. I've made many calculations, and I've quadruple checked them. Put it on a timer, and, obviously, if time stopped, the timer wouldn't work nor would anything else.

You misunderstand the entire point of the discussion with respect to time.

So I'll make it really simple.
What evidence do you have that time exists independent of matter?

 

[Merchant_in_the_dark]

According to Science, 99% of the Universe is "Nothing".

The problem with humans trying to understand this situation is that, if we assume the universe to have had a beginning, there must have been nothing beforehand.

What is the difference between the "Nothing" that fills our universe (AKA, Space) and the "Nothing" that came before space existed?

It is beyond our brains to imaging everything in the universe to be compacted into the pre-big-bang one-dimensional "Dot", because we percieve the world in three dimensions.
We cannot imagine a situation where all of our three dimensional world is compressed into one, and there is NOTHING outside.