Written by Guest on 01.07.2008 at 18:19

Written by belisarius on 29.06.2008 at 15:38

yes, thanx. but it wouldn't be a vacuum. it would be like an impossible number, like -300°C. We could imagine it only like a number, but that number would be a lie because it's impossible. (when something would have a temperature of -300°C, then it would have a negative volume and that's impossible.

So, before there would be nothing (really nothing, not a vacuum) and after stretching and bouncing back once again there would be really nothing. it is very hard to imagine, but that happens more with me when it comes to science .

i know it's hard to imagine, but a negatove volume is that too, but still it's theoretically possible.

Trying to conceive the whole idea of 'nothingness' creates a vacuum in my brain, that's for sure.

But I do love all these theories. I only wished one day we could know the truth.
Then again, meybe we're simply not prepared for it, in our limited little minds... Just a thought.

Written by owl on 02.07.2008 at 11:43

Trying to conceive the whole idea of 'nothingness' creates a vacuum in my brain, that's for sure.

But I do love all these theories. I only wished one day we could know the truth.
Then again, meybe we're simply not prepared for it, in our limited little minds... Just a thought.

how annoying that little mind of mine

Written by owl on 02.07.2008 at 11:43

Trying to conceive the whole idea of 'nothingness' creates a vacuum in my brain, that's for sure.

But I do love all these theories. I only wished one day we could know the truth.
Then again, meybe we're simply not prepared for it, in our limited little minds... Just a thought.

Maybe there is no truth?

Written by Stuart on 25.07.2008 at 20:40

Written by owl on 02.07.2008 at 11:43

Trying to conceive the whole idea of 'nothingness' creates a vacuum in my brain, that's for sure.

But I do love all these theories. I only wished one day we could know the truth.
Then again, meybe we're simply not prepared for it, in our limited little minds... Just a thought.

Maybe there is no truth?

there is no absolute truth because you can know nothing for certain, there's only probability

Out of all the theories and concepts I've heard about space, I think this is the one that makes the most sense to me:

We and the universe are interdependent on each other. In a sense, we collectively just thought up the universe. I don't know how else to explain it, and I won't even try.

Written by belisarius on 28.07.2008 at 10:05

there is no absolute truth because you can know nothing for certain, there's only probability

Is that an absolute statment?

Written by Dane Train on 14.08.2008 at 03:40

Written by belisarius on 28.07.2008 at 10:05

there is no absolute truth because you can know nothing for certain, there's only probability

Is that an absolute statment?

no, even that is only a probability because there's always the chance that there is an absolute truth and then this theory isn't useful anymore.

...
Great trip!

I just know that's we live in someplace. maybe, perhaps, must exist some allien lifeform.
they abicted me hauhaua

:?

Ps: [ironic mode on] was a so inteligent, meaningful answer [/ironic mode off] hahahahahaha

Written by Guest on 05.09.2008 at 21:35

Written by belisarius on 14.08.2008 at 18:56

Written by Dane Train on 14.08.2008 at 03:40

Written by belisarius on 28.07.2008 at 10:05

there is no absolute truth because you can know nothing for certain, there's only probability

Is that an absolute statment?

no, even that is only a probability because there's always the chance that there is an absolute truth and then this theory isn't useful anymore.

Nice save.

Doesn't say anything. It onl says that there is no absolute truth unless there's an absolute truth. huh?

Written by Guest on 09.09.2008 at 21:41

Written by Guest on 05.09.2008 at 21:35

Written by belisarius on 14.08.2008 at 18:56

Written by Dane Train on 14.08.2008 at 03:40

Written by belisarius on 28.07.2008 at 10:05

there is no absolute truth because you can know nothing for certain, there's only probability

Is that an absolute statment?

no, even that is only a probability because there's always the chance that there is an absolute truth and then this theory isn't useful anymore.

Nice save.

Doesn't say anything. It onl says that there is no absolute truth unless there's an absolute truth. huh?

"there's no absolute" implies that the assertion itself is not absolute therefore there might be an absolute statement which can be the assertion itself so: absolutely "there's no absolute" ...

Truth only exists in relation to the axioms we accept. There is no ultimate truth any more than there is an ultimate colour or an ultimate time of day. That is why faith is so important to us as human beings. Even our reliance on reason and logic is ultimately rooted in faith.

Written by Guest on 10.09.2008 at 05:32

Even our reliance on reason and logic is ultimately rooted in faith.

how exactly?


@ Varelse

My god.. I haven't started to discuss it and I'm already with a headache! lol

Oh well.. "In science nothing is created, everything is transformed". I'm a man of science, so I'm always based on that phrase. I believe the universe always existed, maybe not the way we know it right now, but, I don't know, in some other wicked way...
Ok, now I feel like i'm flying.. LOL

Written by AiwiAstwihad on 10.09.2008 at 19:05

Written by Guest on 10.09.2008 at 05:32

Even our reliance on reason and logic is ultimately rooted in faith.

how exactly?

I will have to use reason and logic to explain. Before I proceed, let me ask you this:

Do you have faith in reason and logic?

Written by Guest on 11.09.2008 at 04:25

I will have to use reason and logic to explain. Before I proceed, let me ask you this:

Do you have faith in reason and logic?

what do you mean by "faith"?
"faith" was always a relligious concept for me, that's why i asked...so i won't say "faith in logic/reason"...

Written by AiwiAstwihad on 11.09.2008 at 15:26

Written by Guest on 11.09.2008 at 04:25

I will have to use reason and logic to explain. Before I proceed, let me ask you this:

Do you have faith in reason and logic?

what do you mean by "faith"?
"faith" was always a relligious concept for me, that's why i asked...so i won't say "faith in logic/reason"...

Faith does not belong exclusively to religions, does it? Christians talk of love, but do they own the word?

Substitute the word "trust" for "faith" if it helps.

Written by Guest on 12.09.2008 at 03:44

Faith does not belong exclusively to religions, does it? Christians talk of love, but do they own the word?

Substitute the word "trust" for "faith" if it helps.

my first language aint english therefore i have to use a dictionary
faith:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is NOT based on proof
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.
5. a system of religious belief
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.


allright, "trust" works better...our reliance on reason and logic is ultimately rooted in a trust BASED ON logic/reason.
then i have to say: i concur.

Quote:

2. belief that is NOT based on proof

Logic cannot be proven because it is the base of all proof. It should be proven before it can be used as proof, but doesn't work yet.

Written by Guest on 12.09.2008 at 13:20

Quote:

2. belief that is NOT based on proof

Logic cannot be proven because it is the base of all proof. It should be proven before it can be used as proof, but doesn't work yet.

the foundation is based on axioms/postulates/common notions and logic rules are used to conclude more sophisticated valid inferences/demonstrations.
there are also self-evident propositions such as "believeing oneself is conscious".
if you wanna question every single thing calling 'em unprovable you may also doubt reality/existance/sences/etc, i.e does something you touch really exists or it's just a brain-trick. and come to such ideas: simulated reality, brains in vat, the matrix (movie),etc....

Written by Guest on 12.09.2008 at 13:20

Quote:

2. belief that is NOT based on proof

Logic cannot be proven because it is the base of all proof. It should be proven before it can be used as proof, but doesn't work yet.

So something that cannot be proven should be proven anyway? How does that make any sense?

Aei Ontos, while I assert that any system of thought must ultimately be grounded in something that transcends reason/logic (like conscious experience), I maintain my faith in reason/logic because it works flawlessly and without fail.

Your assertion that logic does not work is very puzzling to me. Sure, if you are unwilling to employ logic properly it definitely won't work. But in that case the failure is not a failure of logic, is it?

Written by akatana on 12.09.2008 at 15:25

...

Expecting logic to be proven is like expecting a book to write itself. Logic is not used as a proof, logic means simply using the rules to get the proof in a system that is consistent, sound and complete.

So a system of consistent, sound and complete rules is an advance condition for the use of logic? How, then, do we establish the consistency, soundness and completeness of a system if we cannot properly employ logic until we have a consistent, sound and complete system?

Written by Guest on 13.09.2008 at 06:30

Written by Guest on 12.09.2008 at 13:20

Quote:

2. belief that is NOT based on proof

Logic cannot be proven because it is the base of all proof. It should be proven before it can be used as proof, but doesn't work yet.

So something that cannot be proven should be proven anyway? How does that make any sense?

Aei Ontos, while I assert that any system of thought must ultimately be grounded in something that transcends reason/logic (like conscious experience), I maintain my faith in reason/logic because it works flawlessly and without fail.

Your assertion that logic does not work is very puzzling to me. Sure, if you are unwilling to employ logic properly it definitely won't work. But in that case the failure is not a failure of logic, is it?

I did not say that logic doesn't work, but that it doesn't work to proof logic. Logic wouldn't be neccesary if there is clear proof. Logic is a way to proof without having the ability to show physical evidence. Logic is used in the case that there is no evidence that speaks for itself.
I don't have faith in logic myslef, but I don't know a better way in many occasions. Men are failable, logic is manmade, so it can fail also.

Written by Guest on 13.09.2008 at 22:43

...

Men are failable, logic is manmade, so it can fail also.

I see what you're trying to get at here, but I don't agree with the way you are expressing your understanding. Logic is such an elementary system of thought that it cannot fail unless it is used improperly (in which case it's not logic any longer). Yes, logic may be inadequate to encompass all elements of human experience. But this is not a failure of logic; it is merely a limit on the scope of its application. For example: if you tried to use a blowtorch to make toast and it didn't work, would you claim that the blowtorch was defective? Of course not! Blowtorches are not meant for making toast. They're too powerful.

In the same way, if logic does not meet with your approval because it challenges your Christian faith, don't accuse logic of being flawed. Logic does exactly what it is meant to do. I would suggest that it is your own faith that needs refinement. (I do not say this as a criticism, but as a simple observation. I am sure you will agree that we all have room to grow!) You claim that religion sucks yet you are reluctant to see the Holy Bible for what it is: another burdensome accoutrement of the religious order. The truth lies within you. It takes faith to believe when the Bible is in your hands. Can you set the book aside and still maintain your faith in Christ? That is where you leave religion behind and begin the true spiritual journey. On that path, it no longer matters whether logic is true or flawed.

Am I making any sense to you, Aei Ontos?

Written by Guest on 13.09.2008 at 07:03

So a system of consistent, sound and complete rules is an advance condition for the use of logic? How, then, do we establish the consistency, soundness and completeness of a system if we cannot properly employ logic until we have a consistent, sound and complete system?

as far as i know, not all logic-systems satisfy those 3 virtues together.
in mathematical logic for example, the impossibility of a consistent & sound set of axioms for ALL of maths has been proven (by Godel, i think) .
BUT since every environment to be processed by logic MUST be modeled first and Knowledge-Base filled with some primary axioms of that environment, then selecting the proper logic-system for that specific environment is a phase perior to modeling.
on an undeterministic environment, we'd better use probability logic instead of propositional logic in which a premise is either true or false.
or when dealing with multi-valued notions rather than just "0/1" , fuzzy logic is used.

not sure if it's what you meant....

Written by Guest on 14.09.2008 at 04:44

Written by Guest on 13.09.2008 at 22:43

...

Men are failable, logic is manmade, so it can fail also.

I see what you're trying to get at here, but I don't agree with the way you are expressing your understanding. Logic is such an elementary system of thought that it cannot fail unless it is used improperly (in which case it's not logic any longer). Yes, logic may be inadequate to encompass all elements of human experience. But this is not a failure of logic; it is merely a limit on the scope of its application. For example: if you tried to use a blowtorch to make toast and it didn't work, would you claim that the blowtorch was defective? Of course not! Blowtorches are not meant for making toast. They're too powerful.

In the same way, if logic does not meet with your approval because it challenges your Christian faith, don't accuse logic of being flawed. Logic does exactly what it is meant to do. I would suggest that it is your own faith that needs refinement. (I do not say this as a criticism, but as a simple observation. I am sure you will agree that we all have room to grow!) You claim that religion sucks yet you are reluctant to see the Holy Bible for what it is: another burdensome accoutrement of the religious order. The truth lies within you. It takes faith to believe when the Bible is in your hands. Can you set the book aside and still maintain your faith in Christ? That is where you leave religion behind and begin the true spiritual journey. On that path, it no longer matters whether logic is true or flawed.

Am I making any sense to you, Aei Ontos?

You make sense, but you mistake in the assumption that what I said was meant as criticism for logic. Logic is like these two banks in the US that where to big to fail. Logic must not fail, because if else there is nothing left.
I use logic myself. But through logic, if you have other evidence, the outcome is different also. My faith is not based on feelings, but through logic I cannot do different than believe. If others have evidence that say that my faith is wrong and I have evidence that my faith is true, where does the problem lay? I think it all has to do with interpretation. Interpretation is part of logic too. It is not the logic that I critizise, I never do so. In this occasion I just wanted to say that we cannot be sure that logic is a good foundation for proof, we must have faith in logic. I know faith, so I am not against faith. And still I want to grow in faith in logic, though I am also critizised through logic.
To answer your question at last. No person can put the bible aside and yet maintain its faith in Christ. The only direct source about Jesus is the bible. The only fundament for Jesus is the bible. Without the bible there would be no faith in Jesus, and if there is no faith in Jesus you can better now kill yourself. Then life is useless and all that would say it's not would be a lie. On a spiritual jorney for the first time the truth really matters you know. Before that you can think it works for you and it doesn't matter if there is a God. But when you are looking for the truth it matters if there is a God or not because if there is no God there is no you.

Written by Guest on 14.09.2008 at 21:20

Written by Guest on 14.09.2008 at 04:44

Written by Guest on 13.09.2008 at 22:43

...

Men are failable, logic is manmade, so it can fail also.

I see what you're trying to get at here, but I don't agree with the way you are expressing your understanding. Logic is such an elementary system of thought that it cannot fail unless it is used improperly (in which case it's not logic any longer). Yes, logic may be inadequate to encompass all elements of human experience. But this is not a failure of logic; it is merely a limit on the scope of its application. For example: if you tried to use a blowtorch to make toast and it didn't work, would you claim that the blowtorch was defective? Of course not! Blowtorches are not meant for making toast. They're too powerful.

In the same way, if logic does not meet with your approval because it challenges your Christian faith, don't accuse logic of being flawed. Logic does exactly what it is meant to do. I would suggest that it is your own faith that needs refinement. (I do not say this as a criticism, but as a simple observation. I am sure you will agree that we all have room to grow!) You claim that religion sucks yet you are reluctant to see the Holy Bible for what it is: another burdensome accoutrement of the religious order. The truth lies within you. It takes faith to believe when the Bible is in your hands. Can you set the book aside and still maintain your faith in Christ? That is where you leave religion behind and begin the true spiritual journey. On that path, it no longer matters whether logic is true or flawed.

Am I making any sense to you, Aei Ontos?

You make sense, but you mistake in the assumption that what I said was meant as criticism for logic. Logic is like these two banks in the US that where to big to fail. Logic must not fail, because if else there is nothing left.
I use logic myself. But through logic, if you have other evidence, the outcome is different also. My faith is not based on feelings, but through logic I cannot do different than believe. If others have evidence that say that my faith is wrong and I have evidence that my faith is true, where does the problem lay? I think it all has to do with interpretation. Interpretation is part of logic too. It is not the logic that I critizise, I never do so. In this occasion I just wanted to say that we cannot be sure that logic is a good foundation for proof, we must have faith in logic. I know faith, so I am not against faith. And still I want to grow in faith in logic, though I am also critizised through logic.
To answer your question at last. No person can put the bible aside and yet maintain its faith in Christ. The only direct source about Jesus is the bible. The only fundament for Jesus is the bible. Without the bible there would be no faith in Jesus, and if there is no faith in Jesus you can better now kill yourself. Then life is useless and all that would say it's not would be a lie. On a spiritual jorney for the first time the truth really matters you know. Before that you can think it works for you and it doesn't matter if there is a God. But when you are looking for the truth it matters if there is a God or not because if there is no God there is no you.

Well it looks like we're in the process of hijacking this thread, Aei Ontos. Better move this discussion over to religion or Christianity.

I will quickly say this one thing, though:

Be careful that you don't mistake the signpost on the highway for your destination on the distant horizon. Yes, the Bible is very important because it tells us about Jesus Christ. But it is just the starting point, nothing more and nothing less.

Written by Guest on 15.09.2008 at 16:38

Written by Guest on 14.09.2008 at 21:20

Written by Guest on 14.09.2008 at 04:44

Written by Guest on 13.09.2008 at 22:43

...

...

...

Well it looks like we're in the process of hijacking this thread, Aei Ontos. Better move this discussion over to religion or Christianity.

I will quickly say this one thing, though:

Be careful that you don't mistake the signpost on the highway for your destination on the distant horizon. Yes, the Bible is very important because it tells us about Jesus Christ. But it is just the starting point, nothing more and nothing less.

Thanks for putting things so great in perspective. We may have another vision on the horizon, but we have a great starting point, right?
I love you bro! Let's keep the universe the universe;)

What I really like about the universe is the idea of absolute attached to it. Anyone can be dogmatic about it, because there's no exact answers. The path till our days has been the unmasking of all religious ideas that explain the origins and the limits, but that's not enough to prove the religious answer is wrong, so the debate is almost eternal. For me the goal is to reach my own answer, instead of looking for one in religion or science, but of course anyone can stuck on his believes.

How about we up the univers a notch or two? Let's put it into somethign different, new and bigger

Okay, what if we have a multiverse instead. Something that encompasses all realities with a consistant level of expansion eminating from an axis/core that holds it all together. Say it extends (like a double Helix would) and has the construction of the Tree of Life but in a 3D pattern encompassed by the double hellix mold instead? Say everything we have( God, Goddesses & Gods, Angels, Spirits, Ghosts, Faeries, Domovoy, Other Dimensions, Alternate Realities, Duppies, the Lowa, everything) had the capability of existing in this as well and some of them can move in between the places within the multiverse?