Existence?

[kahljorn]

That's what 99.9999 percent of the 'mystics' would say, ziggy. The only difference is that they give you hope by saying shit like, "But there's something greater than the human within you that can understand, because it(and 'you') came from this other plane".

I always thought this was kind of funny..
The expression, "I think therefore I am". Which, in and of itself is a pretty stupid statement unless you wish to assume that various molecules have a thinking process, but anyhow. So, "I think therefore I am", and then you have buddhists and hindus and brahmans telling you to Not think to reach Nothingness or nirvana. No thing No think.
But then, the idea that existance was formed through thought hasn't exactly been a huge mystery. Big blobs of energy are always thinking about forbidden apples.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Sethomas

I brought up this subject to piss off a scientist friend of mine. His solution was that there are more possibilities for existence and only one for non-existence, so probability dictates that something should exist. I then explained how he's full of shit.

And you did this how?

Define "possibilities". I believe the term is being misused here.

[Sethomas]

Well, when I was eight and entered into a nation-wide contest, I looked at it two ways: either my odds are 1 in 50,000, or it's half and half: I either win or I don't win. The probability of existence falls into the same logical fallacy--there's an infinite possibility of nothingness since all non-existence outcomes are identical, and a finite possibility of existence*. It's impossible to determine what the precise odds of a Theos (not a god per se, but any self-causing first cause) existing are, and it's an asanine to even try because it's self-evident that it does exist. It's impossible to step outside of existence and view probability arbitrarily.

*The probability of existence is finite due to ratio ad absurdam. Infinite possibilities deigns that any conceivable reality is a viable option. Thus simply by thinking of any logically impossible scenario limits the realm of possibilities of existence. I can think "There can be a universe that exists with standing laws of gravity in which a ten-pound object has more mass than a two-pound object." This is a logical self-contradiction by the laws of physics, and is thus impossible. Therefore, existence's probability is finite.

[ziggytrix]

But I can conceive of a universe where our concept of logic is not rational by that universe's standards. Matter could be comprised of fundamentally different particles. Or the law of gravity could be inverted (perhaps because God willed it so?) Perhaps this universe is not compatible with life. Or perhaps just not with life as we know it. Possibilities for existence are possibly infinite. It's pretty foolish, in my opinion, to argue strongly for or against that premise though, as the ONLY existence and the only system of logic we know is our own.

[Sethomas]

Yeah, I was going to add another footnote saying that the laws of physics we presently observe are an a posteriori to the elementary particle ratios of the big bang. But my point was that we can conceive of a universe like our own that defies logic, hence the possibilities are finite.

Just food for thought, one of my favorite cosmology factoids is that for the universe to expand in the way that it does, the initial matter-antimatter ratio was essentially 5X10^8 to (5X10^8)+1. Someone seems to be looking out after us.

[kahljorn]

I would think it'd be rather impossible to conceive a universe that defies our logic. In fact, you can't really conceive of anything different than this, and to try is entering the 'realms of the unreal'. The fact is, for all you know, "Logic" dictates that the universe, no matter how it's formed or what history it would have, would be governed by exactly the same rules and would look and feel exactly the same.
The idea that it would've formed in any other way is preposterous, and the idea that nothingness has "infinite possibilities" is equally preposterous. If it had "Infinite possibilities" it would be called something other than nothingness. The inherent function of nothingness is the fact that it can never become more than nothing, ever. "Existance" shares the same function. It can never become anything bigger or more important than what it is.

To "Conceive" of any universe would mean that you were god and somehow understood every single function of this and other possible universe's, otherwise you're just pretending to try to answer some inner calling. We call that dreaming or fantasizing.www

In this universe there is reverse gravity, it's called critical mass.

[sadie]

does the sun's setting in a spectrum of purples and reds and oranges saturday night mean it'll stretch across the eastern skyline early sunday?

[Sethomas]

No, we can use mathematical models to prove that under certain conditions during the first femtoseconds after the bang, symetry between the three non-gravitational forces (and throw in gravity too if you're into string theory) would not necessarily have arisen and so you could have worlds where matter is formed by particles other than quarks and have ghastly different properties. And like I said, the chances of the universe expanding to be bigger than a softball were a billion to one in the first place. It was just as probable from a physicist's point of view that the universe were to be made of antimatter, and I'd love to see the implications that would have on our belovèd four physical forces.

If you're going to be retarded, stick with sacred numerology or gnosticism or whatever the hell you're reading this week.

[kahljorn]

So you're saying different substances have different laws that apply to them? Wow, that's not a function of this universe at all. That's why I can run through brick walls and stand on water. Jackass.

*edit* and by the by, good luck running that mathematical experiment to "Prove it", you know, with all them experiments you'll be doing(Of creating universes, because you know, that's a very common occurance in the life in sethomas). And people have never in this world assumed they could solve something with math and been wrong. Never. That has never happened.
Put down the science weekly, not everything in that magazine is true, most of it's theoretical, like how existance could change if sethomas would've splurged.

I guess i should add this in, too:
"certain conditions"
"would not necessarily"
"so you could have worlds"
Those are definites.

"It was just as probable "
"If I flipped a coin, and it came up heads, there is zero probabilty that it might be tails if I look again"
You can't beat hello kitten cthulu

[Sethomas]

If you were literate, you'd know that's not what I'm saying.

Saying "substances" is void of meaning in this context. There's no a priori that substance as we know it has to exist, nor that it can't exist in any other way. Models can prove that both cases are legit.

I know that "real" science scares the shit out of you, but maybe you should look into it.

[kahljorn]

"real science". that kind where you assume things could happen if only they had happened differently?
I remember doing that when I was a kid. You know, I'd cuss at a teacher or hit some kid in the face and all I could think all night is that I wish i could change it so I wouldn't be grounded. And look at me today. I've never had a problem and I'm a perfect person because I used mathematics to change my past. Thanks Euclid, you're the man!

P.S. Did you know Euclid never died? He lives in a universe full of antimatter. But guess what, that universe/existence isn't this universe/existence. Isn't that funny? He went somewhere we'll never go or understand... through the power of mathematics! Now if you'll excuse me, I have to prepare a pizza. P+O+15minutes(425)=5. That was sure good. leaves a nice taste in my mouth.


"substance as we know it has to exist, nor that it can't exist in any other way"
Who honestly cares about models? If you had a brain you'd realize that models of our solar system are no actual representation of our solar system. That's why when you accidently cut the strings to the planet earth we don't suddenly plummet out of the sky. You can't prove anything involving this. You can't experiment with it. You can't do anything. Now we can pretend that it's possible, sure. What asshole hasn't thought that there could be worlds out there that aren't like this one. OH WOW MAN THIS UNIVERSE IS FIVE DIMENSIONS. WOo, great. That's how people impress their friends with how deep they are in eighth grade. "Do you think it's possible that god's a frog?"
None of that matters, though, because our universe formed the way it did, just like it is. You can't change that with a model, not even if you were wearing a goggle. You can sit there and say, "hey, there could be another existance that had another big bang that could be completely different" or you could even say, "Hey, there could be another place that never had a big bang" or even, "Hey, there's this place that sort of resembles a rubberband and it's the entire universe and little particles exist there that don't exist anywhere else" and you know what, it's true in some sense because it exists within your mind. Is there any scientific data that shows how this rubberband stays afloat in midnonair with little particles that don't exist anywhere else and how they function or perform or don't spontaneously catch on fire when they smile? No. That's real science(of course, you can speculate on particles that science "might" understand but that's just a funny joke in itself).
Our universe is the way it is, and nothing's going to change that. There wasn't some change in the symetery. There was just what happened. Therefore, I win. With simple logic that you can't even grasp, jackass. Just remember, whatever happened already happened. So the proof in what I'm saying is already here. WHere's your 'proof'?

Besides that, this other universe would follow the exact same path of nothingness. It can never become anything. A super god could be there who's capable of destroying existences, but that doesn't matter, because it won't change anything, because it's nothing, and there's nothing to change. If there were a universe of antimatter it wouldn't even matter. First off, because it would essentially be a reflection of our universe, with a few different principals, secondly because it has nothing to aspire to. Aspirations are for blind fucks who think this place has something fantastic it can become.

[ziggytrix]

But HOW MANY cthulu kitties can dance on the head of a elder god?

[Sethomas]

I wonder why I have a feeling that the quasi-guy who thinks he's a master of mathematical concepts because he can spell Euclid has never done a line integral or multivariable integration.

[kahljorn]

How do you know I've never done any of that. And anyhow, the only reason you have is because you go to college. But go ahead and try prove your point that because I can't do a line integral I can't understand that if there had been some change that didn't happen(and never will) in the symetery of the antichrist then something different would've happened.
You know, the funny thing is that you're missing a huge point. Things unfolded the way they did, for a reason, most likely following some basic law. How often when you throw a ball does it suddenly change direction for absolutely no reason? I mean, theoretically, if a ball suddenly decided to do a spiral and make a 45 degree angle to the left it could enter some kind of hyperspace. And, it could also simply reverse direction and hit the thrower in the head and kill them. But does that ever happen for no reason? Nope.
Now if that ball had reversed direction and hit the thrower in the head, the entire world could change, i mean, what if hitler played baseball? But guess what, that never happened.

and by the by, i edited my previous post.

[sadie]

i'm glad i scrolled through the blah-blah-blah 'cause ziggy made me lol.

[ziggytrix]

diff e is one of the reasons i quit the engineering program

that shit is fucking hard, and that's coming from someone who thought calculus was a cakewalk.

[kahljorn]

I'm still laughing at how changing the subtance of a cardboard box to metal can make it hold more weight defies our logic... or how changing the basic substance of a world to give it different laws and principals would defy our logic. Now it might logically be different-- that's logic-- but it wouldn't defy our logic, because logic can't really be defied. If the basic rules and functions of a universe were changed, logic would simply adapt to that because it is built off of the rules and functions of the universe. Not off of some pretend shit that you are throwing around to try to act deep...
Of course it'd be different, it's a different substance. That's not illogical, that's logical. A isn't B. An apple isn't an orange. This is stuff you learn when you're a little kid. Mommy isn't daddy. Daddy isn't mommy.
Also, you can give me any equation and I can show you that it has the exact same answer as any other equation.

[Sethomas]

Kahl, I agree that things happened the way they did for a reason. But that's a theological connundrum, and ever since Spinoza declared that nature has no intrinsic telos science has generally accepted this. Pure Darwinism is based on the fact that nature has no direction. So, sure. We both seem to agree that the universe has four forces because God wants it to. But that doesn't change the fact that if there were no God, there's nothing in the past that infallibly dictated that there must be four forces of nature plus matter made of quarks. You're sidestepping the issue, and not eliciting a fair chuckle in the process.

[kahljorn]

Who says there was ever a "God" in the first place..? There's nothing to say that it had to happened, but there's something saying that it did happen. Nature may have no direction, but it has channels and rivers. So while water may not be inclined to flow in any particular pattern in and of itself, gravity and the deep gouge in the moutain decide that much. The same could be said, i suppose, do you know what forces were at work within the bigbang? And what forces were at work before the big bang?
There was obviously something that made it do the things it did, if you want to call that God, that's fine. But attempting to remove him from the "Equation" does nothing, because he was obviously there, you might as well remove the big ball of energy the big bang came from from the equation. And trying to say that things might not have gone the way they had had something else happened is entirely obvious, but that doesn't change the fact that something *did* happen and this was the result. The result could've been different(if something that didn't happen had happened), but who cares, it wasn't. It would be the same circumstance, we could be having this conversation surrounded by antimatter and it really wouldn't matter. Chuckle at that.
Did you know if we were too much closer to the sun we wouldn't be here right now? Yea.

[CaptainBubba]

Speaking as a math major who has done both line and multivariable integration I can state with the greatest of confidence that nothing I have learned in my math courses has ever given me a clear idea of anything related to this conversation.

Just wanted to throw that out.

[WICKED]

Wow. I am wholeheartedy amazed that I'm not the most arrogant one here. You two play nice, now. I'm gonna go spew testosterone all over someone else's meaningful thread. There's certainly more than enough here.

[ItalianStereotype]

you're so deep, WICKED. I'll bet you're soooo dark and like poetry too. what color of mascara do you like? LINKS TO YOUR LIVEJOURNAL PLEASE.

[kahljorn]

"I'm gonna go spew testosterone all over someone else's meaningful thread."

It's not testosterone, it's chocolate.

[Sethomas]

CB, my point wasn't that knowing college math gives an insight into the mysteries of existence. It was that actually doing math rather than studying the philosophy thereof gives an appreciation that it represents the concrete reality of the universe. Like imaginary numbers--sure, they were conceived of in the middle ages as a purely masturbatory exercise, but flourescent lighting and computers couldn't work without them. If mathematical models say that the universe could have resulted just as likely in an instantaneous re-implosion than an accelerating celestial corpus replete with life and black holes, then it's possible.

And wicked, you're retarded. It's a given that any thread I post in will be drenched in testosterone, because I'M ALL MAN, BABY. I mean, that's what it means to have an opinion, right?

[CaptainBubba]

You should at least bring up the obligatory Topology refrence if we're going to be math fags.

Topology :o :o :o.