The Atheist Bus

[_Brutalism_]

I have no idea what you just said. Please reduce THC intake.

Jeff

Ouch.

But then again, even though what I wrote might sound absolutely absurd, and I would concur, but isn't that what everyone would tell someone who proposed something incongruous to common knowledge and experience?

I am a firm believer in science but once cannot hold himself from questioning things which might be beyond what has been proven. I'm guessing that any major spectacular breakthrough was received with the same sceptical and even derogatory remarks. Not that I'm on to anything spectacular here but yeah, I expected that reply from someone.

 

[RockGuitarX]

hehe, fair enough dude, I see where I got personal and I'm sorry for that. However I will never shut up nor do I lack inner peace And I do not see where atheists are like theists, not at all. And since most people who defend their beliefs are simply arrogant (because they claim to know better) I'm not going to stand there and watch them do so.

I'm not judging about you as a person also. So I apologize if you took it that way. But you claimed something and I jumped at it, you have to expect that

I do not respect stupidity, again, that doesn't mean I that I don't respect you as a person. I do not accept irrational viewpoints, that is all.

No harm done man! We all have different viewpoints that are based on personal experiences and logic which we hold very true to ourselves, so I can understand where you're coming from. Sorry if I took things out of context man. Take care

 

[JBroll]

Ouch.

But then again, even though what I wrote might sound absolutely absurd, and I would concur, but isn't that what everyone would tell someone who proposed something incongruous to common knowledge and experience?

I am a firm believer in science but once cannot hold himself from questioning things which might be beyond what has been proven. I'm guessing that any major spectacular breakthrough was received with the same sceptical and even derogatory remarks. Not that I'm on to anything spectacular here but yeah, I expected that reply from someone.

It was just not something that sense could be made of, nothing personal. First, 'before time' and 'outside of time' requires another time-like entity for reference, but the mechanics of that entity require a great deal of work on their own and assuming a 'time outside of time' leads to an infinite regression of 'meta-times' that explain nothing and don't lead anywhere. Further, going 'into' something without space or time doesn't really make sense. It is true that new ideas are met with skepticism and criticism, but do not assume that skepticism and criticism may mean you're onto something - things are true not because they're criticized or unusual but because they're coherent and explain things well.

Jeff

 

[_Brutalism_]

Hehe, I never said I was on to something.

But, please remember that what I said wasn't something which could possibly make sense to begin with. I was just trying to point out that man is limited in his knowledge and science can only get us so far...or so it seems.

I created a picture which was inexplicable and ridiculous in order to try and show that there ARE things beyond human comprehension which even the most astute of physicists would have to put a question-mark on. We know of space and time because we have empirical evidence that we 'exist', because everything is comprised within the confinements of spacetime. But I don't think it would be smart to rule out new dimensions where these factors do not exist. As humans it is impossible for us to imagine anything beyond the 'boundaries' of space and time and I understand your stance towards what I said. I too look at what I wrote (and what others too have speculated rather imaginatively) with VERY serious scepticism because let's face it, nothing we know of in the scientific world which gives any mention to possible dimensions beyond spacetime (as far as I know).

But look at it this way, before the theory of wormholes for example, was it imaginable that one could cross space and time faster than the speed of light? The plausibility of these theories in the physical world are uncertain but that doesn't mean one should rule them out.

I stated that I wasn't onto something, obviously enough. I was just speculating from a scientifically nescient point of view compared to someone like you, but I was just trying to point out that just because certain ideas don't make any logical sense to us NOW, it doesn't mean that they are definitely implausible.

I'm pretty sure that when H.G Wells wrote "The Man on the Moon" everyone just viewed it as something purely imaginary and fictional, just as I would view a film where aliens teleport from one side of the universe to another, breaking all laws of physics as we know them. But my point is, could it be that our lack of knowledge and self-assured pride causes us to write out anything which seems to us insensible? I think that without any radical ideas (we are full of them today with books, films and pictures of supernatural things), humans would ultimately plateau and would stop exploring because they would feel that all has been understood. That is obviously not the case today and the proof is in the pudding as in every field, particularly science (incorporating all aspects of maths and physics) has been pushing its boundaries incessantly over the past century but when the limit of comprehension finally is reached, hypothetically speaking, could it be extended beyond the limit by transcending what is known (which in this hypothetical case is Everything)?.

Maybe a breakthrough in metaphysics as we know it could be the result of some wacko's idea which would be backed up by solid evidence. I don't see it happening to the extremes I mentioned, but I was just trying to get a bizarre idea across.

 

[JBroll]

Science is only limited by what we try to do with it.

Nonsense isn't profound because even physicists question it.

Before you talk about 'new dimensions', what exactly is a dimension?

Wormholes aren't a theory, they're a theoretical construct. Relativity is what you'll want to check out.

H.G. Wells probably didn't try to pass off many of his writings as factual.

Pushing boundaries is good, and science doesn't seem to have boundaries beyond what questions we can ask - however, current work in this type of physics needs a hell of a lot of mathematical backing *and* physical consequences.

"Metaphysics" in the sense most are familiar with (twits on talk shows with too many big words they don't understand) is bullshit and needs to die.

I didn't rule out your ideas as implausible because they were strange or unfamiliar, I ruled them out because they were internally and logically inconsistent.

Jeff

 

[_Brutalism_]

But could things which are passed as fiction, even by their creators, end up being possible?

Something might not be logical or be based on evidence at the moment, but that doesn't constrain the possibility of revealing the once unimaginable to stumble into man's understanding, where then it may be studied and scientifically explained through mathematics and physics.

Also, many ontological questions have tried to be answered starting out with little to substantiate the answer. This has been bashed by empiricists since the beginning. However, speculative thought which as you said is inherently inconsistent could be the root of more profound research once something even remotely related is discovered.

 

[JBroll]

It's possible but not frequent.

Something may not be based on evidence at a given point in time and still wind up true, but logic doesn't change - and internally inconsistent ideas will remain so. Don't expect to see logic changing - it's already as simple as it can be, and when it directly blasts something there's not much else that can be done.

None of the examples you're going to have with no substantiation were internally inconsistent. I can say that without knowing what you have in mind because internally inconsistent concepts are *useless* and will remain so for as long as logic is with us. Zen koans may be nice if you have enough free time or mind-altering substances, but you're not going to get new science out of imagining square circles.

One problem I have with posts like this is framed perfectly by your use of the word "dimension" - in your own words, describe as best as you can what a dimension *is*. It turns out that very few people actually can - the word is thrown around as if it means 'universe', 'reality', or whatever else fits the post/snake oil ad/pseudoscience/whatever, so that's an instant-on for my bullshitometer and explains exactly why people like me have to be such skeptical assholes.

Jeff

 

[Glenn Fricker]

since we don't easily visualize things in four-dimensional space

Jeff

Tell me about it. Every time I start thinking about these concepts I begin to feel very, very dumb.


Then again, it's the "once you learn something, the more you realize you know very little" effect..... which is the antithesis of religion. Religion claims to have all the answers already, and we have to shoe-horn ourselves into an outdated way of life.

 

[_Brutalism_]

Of course something illogical cannot become logical, but something which has no basis for logic could be altered.

Take flying for example. Before human ever saw anything fly, it was deemed impossible. Once birds and insects with wings were observed to fly and light object float due to a base large enough for sufficient air resistance, their logic was altered too.

I am aware that the word 'dimension' has different definitions. In common use it refers to size or aspect or even a level of reality (which is what you were referring to as being the layman's term which pisses you off).

In Maths and Physics the word has a different definition, referring either to coordinates of time and space or either properties defining something physical. If my use of the word irked you then I pray that you would acknowledge and excuse my lack of eloquence when speaking of such things which you understand in much greater detail but I'm sure that you can stoop down to my level and understand what I am getting at.

I was referring to something which had different properties for anything in existence. For example, let us take God. Some believe that he is beyond Time and Space because he is infinite in size and has existed in a incomprehensible form for eternity. I am noticing the contradictions of my statement, don't you worry, which is why I disposed of the idea of a God once this became apparent to me. But my initial post was trying to question whether something of the sort might one day reveal itself to us, however absurd that sounds. I am not one who will deny existence of a God even after solid evidence has revealed itself to mankind and will instantly dispose of my prior beliefs which will be disproved with a blatantly unquestionable divine intervention.

 

[JBroll]

Your comparisons do not fit. Not only have things flown since pre-human times, it was not deemed impossible by anything more rigorous than "URK I ROCK HEAD GYARR!"...

The layman's term could be easily replaced by 'universe', 'reality', or whatever else would fit the context - I instantly do a double-take whenever I see that word, because I begin looking for math and find none... think this:

I understand that you aren't familiar with the mathematical meaning of the word, but I'd appreciate if you didn't use it because it's unnecessary and obfuscating.

I gave up on the deity thing for similar reasons - I couldn't find one that was coherent, and when it comes down to it I'd much rather have logic than comfort.

Since I prefer math to physics I don't care much for evidence - I enjoy dealing with abstract things more than pretending to care about real-world events, so I look strictly at logical consistency before anything else and that's where I dropped that belief.

Glenn, four-dimensional visualization is... well, I haven't tried hallucinogens, but thanks to math I don't really need to.

Picture it like this... imagine that we have a being (who will be referred to as Larry Lineman) existing only in one-dimensional space (a line), and we want to show Larry a circle. If we were to draw a circle on a piece of paper and look at it by moving it under a narrow slit on another piece of paper, we'd see a point at the top; moving down, we'd see a pair of points that at first grew further away, then stopped, and then came closer together again, until we came to the bottom of the circle and only saw a single point again.

We would then 'demonstrate' a circle to Larry by saying that "well, when we look at this object through your restrictions, displaying its 'part' in one dimension while moving through the second to see the whole thing, it looks like this" and show him a point that gradually splits into two parts that move apart and then back together until becoming a single point again. What have we done? We've taken advantage of movement through time (and a good bit of intelligence on Larry's part) to turn a static image into a 'movie' of sorts, and let the imagination take the rest.

Similarly, if we had Pete Planeman, a similar entity living only in two-dimensional space (say, on a piece of paper) we could show him a sphere by passing a sphere 'through' the plane - he would see a dot, and then a growing circle, and then a shrinking circle, and finally another dot. Again, we display as much of the object as we can in the restricted space, and use the change in the object over time to help 'imagine' what it would look like in higher-dimensional space.

If, then, Harry Hyperspaceman, a four-dimensional being, tried to show us a four-dimensional hypersphere in this way, it would look to us like a point, then a growing sphere, and then a shrinking sphere, and finally a point; if he were to show us a four-dimensional hypercube, we'd see nothing, then a cube popping straight into existence, and nothing again; if we were to be showed a hyperdodecahedron... well, fuck it, he's a total bastard and I'm going to go get a drink. (This was all possibly just paraphrased from somewhere, but I'll be damned if I know where...)

Jeff

 

[Erkan]

Interesting analogies Jeff

Anyway, I used to think alot about the universe and a potential God like a year ago, but of course it was all in vein. However, there was one thing I could pull out from those thoughts. I started believing that if the universe has a shape (which I guess it has to if it's not infinite?), then in order for that shape to exist, there must be something that encompasses the universe.

But this is just linear thinking as mentioned previously in the thread. I think I think this way just because I cannot imagine it being any other way due to my mind's limitations. And even if I'm right, this question just continues infinitely, like all other attempts to figure out what is "beyond" our universe, or what was "before" our universe. Next question would just be "What is the shape of which that encompasses the universe? What in turn, encompasses this?", and so on.

Same thing goes for God. 99% of atheists I've met so far (which haven't been many btw, since we rarely talk about religion around here) have just clinged on to the popular "atheist question": If your God exists, who/what created him?

And same thing for science: If Big Bang took place, who/what created Big Bang?

This question is more interesting to me than what was "before" the universe, because as Jeff said, time is considered a spatial dimension "these days", so asking what's before the universe is like "What's south of the south pole?" as Hawkings described it. So asking instead, where this immense concentration of matter resided from, or how it ended up being there in the "first" place etc, is more interesting for me.

Trailing off here into a new question... if the Big Bang was a single point in space (although according to the theory, there was no space outside the Big Bang?), would this mean that the Big Bang had a location/coordinate just like a point in mathematics, or did Big Bang exist everywhere through reality, but the reality was "shrinked" to the size of Big Bang? Uhmm, this question didn't make much sense I think.

Well, to tie this up back on topic, I don't blame people for believing in religions. When avarage Joes think about these stuff, I can really understand that the simplest solution is "God made it", and that's that.

The most likely idea of a God for me would be a power that created the Big Bang and disturbed the balance between matter and anti-matter during the baryogenesis (a very very early moment in the universe's creation), so that we, matter, could exist, and then left the universe alone to its own business. So whether we have souls or if we are just walking machines, I don't know. (What's this shit about the body becoming 20 grams lighter upon death, has it ever been tested?)

 

[Felix Neumann]

Oh..very good post, dude! Leads me to think about it.

 

[dan weapon]

(What's this shit about the body becoming 20 grams lighter upon death, has it ever been tested?)

Easy: people shitting themselves on death

 

[Felix Neumann]

Easy: people shitting themselves on death

Haha do you know the southpark episode?

 

[Metaltastic]

"No, wait you guys, maybe he's not dead!" *incredulous looks* "No really, they say the last thing you do before you die is crap your-"

POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP

"Oh, nevermind..."

 

[JBroll]

The after-death weight change isn't a soul or anything stupid like that. Just look it up, there are a few things at play with that.

Here's a question for you - why do things need to be created? That's an assumption that leads to either its own contradiction or an infinite regression of 'creators' that can't answer anything. Your 'god' won't help to answer this question at all - either he didn't need to be created, which contradicts the assumption that made him necessary in the first place, or he did, which means that you've made necessary infinitely many more gods... and either way failed to answer anything at all.

As for the universe being finite... saying anything either way is hard, so I hesitated to say that it was finite and I wouldn't really say much either way.

Read "The First Three Minutes" by Steven Weinberg and things should be clearer. The Big Bang was an incredibly fast expansion of spacetime itself, not just a random 'plorp!' that planets happened to pop out of.

Jeff

 

[abyssofdreams]

The after-death weight change isn't a soul or anything stupid like that. Just look it up, there are a few things at play with that.

Here's a question for you - why do things need to be created? That's an assumption that leads to either its own contradiction or an infinite regression of 'creators' that can't answer anything. Your 'god' won't help to answer this question at all - either he didn't need to be created, which contradicts the assumption that made him necessary in the first place, or he did, which means that you've made necessary infinitely many more gods... and either way failed to answer anything at all.

As for the universe being finite... saying anything either way is hard, so I hesitated to say that it was finite and I wouldn't really say much either way.

Read "The First Three Minutes" by Steven Weinberg and things should be clearer. The Big Bang was an incredibly fast expansion of spacetime itself, not just a random 'plorp!' that planets happened to pop out of.

Jeff

Haha, nice. That's like what Douglas Adams often said about evolution and his water splash analogy. You really have your thoughts together, Jeff, really impressing. Above is what I've read through several books but I wouldn't be able to point it out that straight.

 

[abyssofdreams]

Picture it like this... imagine that we have a being (who will be referred to as Larry Lineman) existing only in one-dimensional space (a line), and we want to show Larry a circle. If we were to draw a circle on a piece of paper and look at it by moving it under a narrow slit on another piece of paper, we'd see a point at the top; moving down, we'd see a pair of points that at first grew further away, then stopped, and then came closer together again, until we came to the bottom of the circle and only saw a single point again.

This reminds me:

 

[Felix Neumann]

"No, wait you guys, maybe he's not dead!" *incredulous looks* "No really, they say the last thing you do before you die is crap your-"

POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP

"Oh, nevermind..."

Hahahahahahah I knew, some people here know it

 

[dan weapon]

As for the universe being finite... saying anything either way is hard, so I hesitated to say that it was finite and I wouldn't really say much either way.

Is it fact or theory that the universe is expanding? Because (and I am wary of using the word 'obviously') if something has the ability to increase in volume/mass etc then you would assume that it is therefore not in an infinite state.

I'm aware that the likes of redshift of stars helped form the concept that everything is moving away from us (and indeed away from each other), which points towards an expanding universe... but I can only regurgitate what I've read from more intelligent minds.

Here's a question for you - why do things need to be created?

Hmmm... I view 'why' (In the context of that question) in much the same way that I can't comprehend a fifth dimension in physical terms. I'm not sure there needs to be a reason as such, it just is.
Failing that, if there wasn't a reason - would we be here to ask that question in the first place?

But trying to answer that is in a league above asking; what's the meaning of life (beyond sustaining a bloodline through procreation)?