Science cant prove everything?

We just need some Nibblers to shit massive amounts of antimatter and we may have a starting point :)

And that "god damn" particle. The Higgs boson, that's one of the main goals at CERN isn't it? If it exists, it will complete and unite some big ass theory, I'm not sure which one right now, it's been a while since I was reading about that.

Haha, just came to think about the media hype about CERN... how they inflated the "news" about the possible black holes that could emerge and SWALLOW THE EARTH, OH NOEZ! And that 14-15 year old girl in India who commited suicide because she believed in the media hype.

I <3 Media and stupid people.

Btw, this thread is weird. It gave birth to many discussions that are sort of off-topic but it's fun! And the thread is located in the off-topic section soooo... LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!!!! (wtf?)
 
Asking things like 'what processes will the brain go through before shutting down' or 'how are things perceived when dying' could eventually be answerable, at least. I can't say much else - one of the biggest things in science is knowing what questions to ask.

Those questions has already been answered, at least some conditions of dying.
Like when you are drowning, you experience "the light in the end of the tunnel".
I dont remember the explanation exactly, but your pupils dilate, and you get "high" from not getting any oxygen in your system.

I started to watch a documentary about what goes on in your brain when you die, but I fell asleep after that part I just told you about. :erk:
 
And that "god damn" particle. The Higgs boson, that's one of the main goals at CERN isn't it? If it exists, it will complete and unite some big ass theory, I'm not sure which one right now, it's been a while since I was reading about that.

It will prove the big bang, and unlock a new era of quantum physics.

Haha, just came to think about the media hype about CERN... how they inflated the "news" about the possible black holes that could emerge and SWALLOW THE EARTH, OH NOEZ! And that 14-15 year old girl in India who commited suicide because she believed in the media hype.

I <3 Media and stupid people.

To be fair, its true.
The earth could very well be swallowed by a black hole created in the Large Hadron Collider, but the probability is very very low.
And whats being done in the Large Hadron Collider goes on in the outer edges of our own atmosphere at a much higher rate, and considering that the earth has existed for 4,6 billion years without being swallowed by a black hole, its not very likely that the project in Cern will be the end of the world. ;)
 
It's easy for me to imagine the nothingness which follows death. It will be exactly the same thing you experienced before you were born.

This at least implies the possibilty of reincarnation.

But what is there to prove about death? Death means to stop living and people stop living all the time. Are you actually talking about what comes after death? If you ask me, there is no reason to think that anything does. It's just wishful thinking.

This not :)

but seriously, reincarnation seems to be another thing where there are no scientific proofs in any direction.
 
but seriously, reincarnation seems to be another thing where there are no scientific proofs in any direction.

That depends on what you call reincarnation.
I wouldn't call it a "true" reincarnation if i where to be reborn with out any memories of my previous life, because to me that means that theres no longer any connection between your previous life and new one.

And as said before, these are more philosophical questions.
 
That depends on what you call reincarnation.
I wouldn't call it a "true" reincarnation if i where to be reborn with out any memories of my previous life, because to me that means that theres no longer any connection between your previous life and new one.

And as said before, these are more philosophical questions.

that´s a bit easy as people who are into this see this a lot more differentiated, but i won`t bore you with philosophical things ;-)
 
It's easy for me to imagine the nothingness which follows death. It will be exactly the same thing you experienced before you were born.

Already done my fair share of thinking around that subject :)

If death is what we think it is, then it is completely fair to say we have already been dead once. So if science is right with the age of the universe and all that, I have been dead for around 13 billion years, then started living 22 years ago, and then I will die sometime "soon". This way of thinking brings up a new question: What stops me from coming back after my death? How do I know that I haven't been born previously?

Yea, reincarnation and all that stuff, it could be a way to play around with this train of thoughts and try to "explain" it, but as it is not science, it doesn't matter how much you think about since it will carry no weight in discussions :)
 
Oh btw, the string theory and all that shit, they assume the strings vibrate right? The way I see it is that, if it can vibrate, it has to be made up from even smaller parts so it can bend. It's just like pixels on a screen: a pixel cannot bend, but several pixels can take the form of a curved line.

This goes for rest of science already, right? It's fair to say there are no atoms, because an atom is just a group of electrons, protons and neutrons. In turn, the stuff that makes up an atom doesn't really exist either because in their essence, they are quarks (if I'm not wrong?), and so on and on. Quarks are made up of... <insert next thing>, which in turn is made up of <insert next thing>.

The ultimate question I would like science to solve would be: What the fuck is the universe doing here in the first place? Wouldn't it just be so much "easier" if nothing existed at all?

It's like... in order to exist, there is a strain, an effort of some kind. There is a very neat system (I'm NOT talking about "Intelligent" Design) that lines up energy into groups and forms particles, and they in turn group up and form new things etc etc. Why bother with all that shit when there can just be nothing instead.
 
abyssofdreams, absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it is certainly an indication that something isn't plausible or worth considering in most cases.

Gojira... whatever the balls you're smoking needs to be put away. There's a big difference between being made of stuff and not existing. You're also assuming that nothing is more natural than something - when nature clearly disagrees. I literally can't follow most of what you're saying.

Jeff
 
Gojira... whatever the balls you're smoking needs to be put away.Jeff

I'm not smoking anything at the moment. You would wonder what sort of things I would think about if I did though :) (Hey, maybe I would make more sense if I DID smoke something!)

Well yeah, can't blame ya, it's not easy to "explain" and "discuss" things that are going on deep inside your own mind, and I don't really expect to be understood either, while talking about weirdo crazy ass stuff like these.

Ok let's get back on topic: Can science prove that I exist? :D

Not really looking for an answer on this one since this really is yet another philosophical question. Yes science can prove I have active brain waves etc etc but you could probably build an AI machine that has brain waves too. Still, would it be a "person"? Hmm I am right... this has nothing to do with science, just ignore this one :D
 
..Time travel..

well instead of harvesting naturally occuring diamonds, we now psuedo-age the carbon and get "real fake" diamonds, so in some form time travel does exist.

I think it also has something to do with the body "exercising" the penis. Sort of making sure you can maintain a hard-on.

cock push ups?

Quite honestly I don't think we will ever get the full idea of why the brain works the way it does. Long term memory and all that shit.

neurophysiology is a huge interest of mine. (i'm not an expert, nor am i pursuing this through official study). recently i was introduced to the works of one Michael Talbot, and particularly his book "mystics and the new physics". pure awesome. i felt like i was on a shroom trip just by reading it. another great one that ties neurophysiology to music, is "this is your brain on music" by daniel levitin.

i don't know if you guys saw it, but they "proved" the existence of a black hole in the center of the milky way. mayans predict the earth to be in the center of the milky way 12/20/2012. that's my friend steves birthday. he will be 32 on that day. 12+20=32. he knows hebrew. these points all have nothing to do with this link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28160442/

Religion nor Science can prove Virgin Birth.

bloodbath blasts the virgin born.

Nature can: Female Sharks and large Lizards can get pregnant and give birth to young without a male sperm donor.

but we do know about a (proposed to be) biologically immortal organism that can switch between asexual, and sexual reproduction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_(genus)

when you are dead, as in completely dead.

what is completely dead?

blah blah blah 11 dimensions blah blah blah

11 dimensions proposed. 11 notes (in western tuning) before you hit tonic. conincidence? i think not!
 
abyssofdreams, absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it is certainly an indication that something isn't plausible or worth considering in most cases.

Jeff

I'm not sure if I'm following you here. You mean that anything where there is no evidence (yet) that it isn't worth to be considered at all?
What I mean is, just because you don't SEE the evidence (right from the start), doesn't mean it can be dismissed without further research.

and by most cases, which are the exceptions?
 
what is completely dead?

Imagine a person jumping straight into a meat grinder. Out comes several nice smooth strings of that human, all minced up and ready to be packaged.

I think you are pretty dead in that state, as opposed to "dying", where you are falling towards death but you are still alive while doing so (a person who has been shot and loses blood and slowly dies f.ex). Only when you disappear, do you truly die "once and for all", but you never experience it since what makes you, disappears.

Thus death is not a part of life, or that's how I see it atleast.

I guess you could say that we never die (since we don't get to experience death itself, only the process), but it does not mean we're immortal.

But all this mumbo jumbo I'm speaking is just hypothetical bullshit, it can't be proven, it can't be tested, it can't be measured, yet it is so appealing to think about it in hope of finding "the answer". Well I guess that's what Buddha did in his lifetime.
 
The ultimate question I would like science to solve would be: What the fuck is the universe doing here in the first place? Wouldn't it just be so much "easier" if nothing existed at all?

One of the most accepted "theories" of our universe is that it was created through a singularity, and that singularity is thought to be: "Nothing cant not exist unless something exists, so something must exist or else nothing can not exist."(Keep track of those double negatives! ;)).
There is also a major flaw in this theory: Something cant be created from nothing, but nothing can be created by something.
This implies that there was something in the beginning, which became nothing, that born something.

So here, we might just have found the answer to this thread: Science cant explain why the f-ck big bang even could happen, and what it was before, and where it came from.
Major mindfuck going on. :lol:
 
I'm not sure if I'm following you here. You mean that anything where there is no evidence (yet) that it isn't worth to be considered at all?
What I mean is, just because you don't SEE the evidence (right from the start), doesn't mean it can be dismissed without further research.

and by most cases, which are the exceptions?

There are two possibilities for things: either they have evidence behind them, or they don't.

Suppose something doesn't have evidence behind it. If it has explanatory value and is reasonably simple (scale check: evolution is reasonably simple, a mythical sky-daddy creating the universe in a few days is not), it is developed until it can be reasonably tested, and then when it is tested it is either adjusted (if it's close) or thrown the fuck out (if it's nowhere near reality)... if something cannot be tested or verified it simply is not science. If it can't be grounded in reality, or it can't provide useful questions and answers, it isn't science. Something can be useful without evidence, and those things (string theory is a big example) are developed until they could be tested, but evidence is key in any scientific discussion. String theory, for example, isn't yet testable - but it could be testable very soon and has significant explanatory value. Gods (or any other 'supernatural' entities), on the other hand, are not considered because in the structure of science they're pretty useless and vague.

Jeff
 
As Jeff has mentioned; Time is considered to be the fourth dimension. And although scientists use other dimensions, it's purely for mathematical use as opposed to actually knowing what they are.

Also, rather than being something that definitely exists in a guaranteed state, "time" is something that humans have created to effectively put into context a progressing sequence of events in the way that we experience them. There is still some doubt as to whether &#8220;time&#8221; will actually continue to exist in the way that we currently experience it, or whether it may actually start going backwards at some point in the future.



I don't have a particularly huge interest in the subject, but I'd love to find out more about extra-terrestrial life. Earth is nothing short of miraculous from the point of view that so many minute factors are involved to allow carbon based lifeforms to exist in the way it does here... but the universe is so vast that it seems completely ignorant and arrogant to assume that our little 'corner' of it is the only place life can happen.

The whole hangar 18/area 51/roswell thing intrigues me, and I'd love an honest answer regarding what has genuinely gone on there...
 
One of the most accepted "theories" of our universe is that it was created through a singularity, and that singularity is thought to be: "Nothing cant not exist unless something exists, so something must exist or else nothing can not exist."(Keep track of those double negatives! ;)).
There is also a major flaw in this theory: Something cant be created from nothing, but nothing can be created by something.
This implies that there was something in the beginning, which became nothing, that born something.

Yes, this is some big fucking mindfuck! I've thought of this too occasionally. I know what you're saying with those double negatives, and it is really interesting.

A simple explanation to end the "what was before big bang?" question is "what is south of the south pole?", that I picked up while watching Stephen Hawking's videos on youtube. However, this is really hard to grasp since we are so used to think linearly, due to time. But according to him, time did not exist until big bang "decided" to explode, and since there was no time "back then", big bang never really "waited" before exploding.

But still, this is major mindfuck to me because it still doesn't answer WHY, or HOW big bang could possibly exist. This theory clears up a few things, sure, but it assumes that big bang just existed and that's the end of that, no reason to think more about it. Ok so anyway, big bang exploded in a clusterfuck of holy shitness and gave birth to not only energy (matter), but also whole dimensions. So what is the ultimate fate then?

The universe will either continue to expand until it is so big that every atom is torn apart and nothing can exist anymore (except single atoms in a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge vacuum), or it will fall back and collapse into a new singularity and start over. The latter is interesting because this sort of implies there is an eternity, even if not in time, but the fact that this cycle repeats itself over and over again, is sort of like eternity. It still doesn't explain where it originated from though...

As Jeff has mentioned; Time is considered to be the fourth dimension.

But if time is a fourth dimension, doesn't that mean everything is pre-determined? I have a hard time accepting time as a dimension because all the spatial dimensions we know contain something in them already. What I mean is, if you pick a vector and start traveling along it in space, you will bump into lots of things on the way, because they are already there further ahead than you. So if time is just another dimension, then there will already be things "on" time, that we bump into eventually.

So I think time is something different... can't say how though, I have absolutely no idea. But I also have a hard time saying time does NOT exist and that it's just an illusion of the human perception, because I can clearly see how things happen in a sequence... I know f.ex that if I throw a ball on the ground, it will bounce x times before stopping. Each bounce is a process which the ball goes through, and I can see that they don't happen at the same time. Kinda hard to deny something you see and acknowledge :)

But on the other hand... EVERYTHING we see, hear, smell, taste, feel and so on, is nothing but electrical signals. I don't know if this keyboard I'm typing on exists, I'm assuming so merely because I'm being fed with electrical signals that tell me so. So how can you really be sure of anything? :D (This one is also a mindfuck if you think about it long enough).

My theory of everything is: It's a fucking computer simulation. The Big Bang is some nerd hitting "Enter" on his version of "The Sims", and here we are. But then... where did the nerd come from? This is actually the same thing as the popular question "If God exists, who created him/where did he come from?", which in turn is no different than "Where did Big Bang come from?".

So here, we might just have found the answer to this thread: Science cant explain why the f-ck big bang even could happen, and what it was before, and where it came from.
Major mindfuck going on. :lol:

Right on dude, all of this off-topicing has finally lead to an interesting question... or whatever that is!

Last friday, when we were at a friend's and drinking, we managed to slip into some existential discussion and man... it's not easy when you're drunk to boot! All kinds of crazy ass theories were flying across the room like freakin' lazer guns man, I tell ya... haha, I wonder what would happen if all of us from UM got together and did the same thing.