Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
zep73

The Nature of Reality

587 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

zep73
3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

No, surely it only affects the decimated?

Oh, so you mean the universe itself is basicly unaffected. Hmm....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
3 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Oh, so you mean the universe itself is basicly unaffected. Hmm....

If anything, it allows for resources to last longer so that's a good thing. I don't know that half the population of all living being deing would actually affect the universe.

But hay what the hell do I know?

Edited by danydandan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
8 minutes ago, danydandan said:

If anything, it allows for resources to last longer so that's a good thing. I don't know that half the population of all living being deing would actually affect the universe.

But hay what the hell do I know?

Do you think the universe is pointless? That we are just a coincidental occurrence in a pointless universe?

That would be pretty much the summary of what most atheists think.

I don't disagree, but as you know, I suspect otherwise.

Edited by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
29 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

SPOILER WARNING!

Okay, if half the universe's population is wiped out, will that not affect the other half?

Thus: "the fate of the entire universe is at stake"

Yes.

So the other half of the universe's FEELINGS are at stake.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
12 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Do you think the universe is pointless? That we are just a coincidental occurrence in a pointless universe?

That would be pretty much the summary of what most atheists think.

I don't disagree, but as you know, I suspect otherwise.

I'm not an Atheist, and I don't nor won't assume to have a clue about why the universe is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I'm not an Atheist, and I don't nor won't assume to have a clue about why the universe is.

It's good to be humbe. It's admirable. But it gets us nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
4 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

It's good to be humbe. It's admirable. But it gets us nowhere.

I'd rather not make stuff up. No one has a clue why the universe is. And to be honest it doesn't matter, it not like we can leave or change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
6 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I'd rather not make stuff up. No one has a clue why the universe is. And to be honest it doesn't matter, it not like we can leave or change it.

Are you suggesting that I'm making stuff up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Are you suggesting that I'm making stuff up?

I'm suggesting that anyone who assumes to know why the universe is, is making stuff up. We have exactly 0% data on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
1 minute ago, danydandan said:

I'm suggesting that anyone who assumes to know why the universe is, is making stuff up. We have exactly 0% data on it.

Can't hurt to make a logical, probable assumption. I mean, it's not like it's a new faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 minute ago, sci-nerd said:

Can't hurt to make a logical, probable assumption. I mean, it's not like it's a new faith.

The issue is one can't make logical assumptions with no data.

It's good to discuss and talk about, but in reality it's kind of as moot as arguing about God. Unfalsifiable claims are just going to get us nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

The issue is one can't make logical assumptions with no data.

It's good to discuss and talk about, but in reality it's kind of as moot as arguing about God. Unfalsifiable claims are just going to get us nowhere.

I disagree with the basis of you argument (no data).

Do you consider the chance of getting data to be equal to zero or more (however slightly)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
4 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I disagree with the basis of you argument (no data).

Do you consider the chance of getting data to be equal to zero or more (however slightly)?

Do you have data about prior to the big bang? I'm of the opinion that you can't know why without knowing how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
8 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Do you have data about prior to the big bang? I'm of the opinion that you can't know why without knowing how.

I know that suddently the early universe was there. Boom! Expansion from nowhere!

Right after the boom there was countless electrons (with the exact same charge!), countless protons (with the exact same charge!) and neutrons with no charge.

What random process makes identical items in such large quatities in an instant?

The logic answer: A calculating "entity".

Edited by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
11 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I know that suddently the early universe was there. Boom! Expansion from nowhere!

Right after the boom there was countless electrons (with the exact same charge!), countless protons (with the exact same charge!) and neutrons with no charge.

What random process makes identical items in such large quatities in an instant?

The logic answer: A calculating "entity".

That's not the logical answer the logical answer is we don't know.

As for after initial expansion, we can only really speculate. And it appears asymmetry certainly had a massive role to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
14 minutes ago, danydandan said:

That's not the logical answer the logical answer is we don't know.

As for after initial expansion, we can only really speculate. And it appears asymmetry certainly had a massive role to play.

Thank you for disagreeing. Keeping the discussion alive. The last thing I want is "The new chuch of virtual reality".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
On 14/8/2018 at 11:00 PM, sci-nerd said:

Keeping the discussion alive.

Might have said that to early! 11 days since I said that, and no replies :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

We didn't like the way you spelled "church."

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
17 hours ago, Harte said:

We didn't like the way you spelled "church."

Dammit, those tiny letters! :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
On 25/8/2018 at 6:28 PM, sci-nerd said:

Dammit, those tiny letters! :angry:

Sci-nerd, I have been thinking over the last few days, and I'd like to ask what interpretation of quantum mechanics you ascribe to.

Is it's Bohr's or Everett's? It's applicable to this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
7 hours ago, danydandan said:

Sci-nerd, I have been thinking over the last few days, and I'd like to ask what interpretation of quantum mechanics you ascribe to.

Is it's Bohr's or Everett's? It's applicable to this discussion.

I'm with Bohr/Heisenberg. The many-worlds-theory does not compute so well with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
29 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I'm with Bohr/Heisenberg. The many-worlds-theory does not compute so well with me.

At least your consistent, if you didn't your support of a 'Matrix' reality would be strange.

I'm more in the many world's camp, simply because of M-Theory and it's extra dimensional postulates.

But I still think it's an incomplete interpretation of reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid

What we experience as reality is a construct of the human mind. We experience our reality on the human scale. we can't experience reality on the largest scale nor at the smallest scale. All we can do is convert or distort nature at these scales to fit into our mental constructs of the human scale.

So, in this sense, we can never know or understand the fundamental nature of reality. Even a mathematical description of reality is a simulation or model of the actual thing we are trying to describe.

This is stating the obvious, but I think we should keep in mind that all our theories describe something fundamentally mysterious and incomprehensible. 

If we think we know or understand reality we are mistaken. All we are doing is converting this mystery to human experience  If we could 'see' reality as it actually is, it would be something completely different than our human knowledge of it. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
21 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I'm more in the many world's camp, simply because of M-Theory and it's extra dimensional postulates.

I see no reason why many dimensions cannot be a part of a virtual one-universe reality. An explanation could be, that those who run it are "many-dimensional" beings. But ofcourse that's pure speculation.

12 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

What we experience as reality is a construct of the human mind. We experience our reality on the human scale. we can't experience reality on the largest scale nor at the smallest scale. All we can do is convert or distort nature at these scales to fit into our mental constructs of the human scale.

So, in this sense, we can never know or understand the fundamental nature of reality. Even a mathematical description of reality is a simulation or model of the actual thing we are trying to describe.

This is stating the obvious, but I think we should keep in mind that all our theories describe something fundamentally mysterious and incomprehensible. 

If we think we know or understand reality we are mistaken. All we are doing is converting this mystery to human experience  If we could 'see' reality as it actually is, it would be something completely different than our human knowledge of it. 

Sorry, I do not subscribe to the impossible. I believe that humanity can achieve any goal it is determined to.

Edited by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid
5 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:
16 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

What we experience as reality is a construct of the human mind. We experience our reality on the human scale. we can't experience reality on the largest scale nor at the smallest scale. All we can do is convert or distort nature at these scales to fit into our mental constructs of the human scale.

So, in this sense, we can never know or understand the fundamental nature of reality. Even a mathematical description of reality is a simulation or model of the actual thing we are trying to describe.

This is stating the obvious, but I think we should keep in mind that all our theories describe something fundamentally mysterious and incomprehensible. 

If we think we know or understand reality we are mistaken. All we are doing is converting this mystery to human experience  If we could 'see' reality as it actually is, it would be something completely different than our human knowledge of it. 

Sorry, I do not subscribe to the impossible. I believe that humanity can achieve any goal it is determined to.

What I'm trying to say is, we don't perceive the thing itself, we can only convert reality into our mental construction of reality. For instance, elementary particles have qualities such as "spin", "lepton number", the four fundamental forces, etc., all qualities of reality that are beyond our human experience to perceive.

So, all our theories of reality are models of reality the mind can relate to, and never reality itself. In this sense, the true nature of reality will always be elusive. That's all I'm saying. 

We may be able to create an exact model of reality, but it will still be only a model comprehensible to our mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.