Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Anybody up for a debate?

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
Anybody up for a debate?
Plucky
Member #1,346
May 2001
avatar

Quote:

... science can't explain a lot of events ...

If science could explain everything, then we wouldn't have this debate... we would be gods of the universe. ;)

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

Isn't there a Stephen Hawking quote like that? ;)

The problem is when people dismiss things as impossible because science can't explain them. Walking on water, for example. Feeding five thousand with a few loaves of bread. Prophecy. The Red Sea parting. That sort of thing. A certian breed of individual thinks that these things are scientifically impossible so the Bible must be lying (considering God non-existent a priori, of course :)).

OTOH, people try to say we have science to explain things that used to be attributed to God. Which I guess is what you were trying to say up there. Some people even tried to do that in the last religion thread, like saying people attributed flying birds to God or some other nonsense :P Not true at all, of course ::) ...

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

kazzmir
Member #1,786
December 2001
avatar

Quote:

If science could explain everything, then we wouldn't have this debate... we would be gods of the universe. ;)

I had an arguement about this once with my friend. I said that everything in the universe could be explained with logic, and therefore the universe works in a logical manner and not randomly. He said that there are things in the universe that are purely random and science could never explain, but i disagree. Why? I have no real basis, just that based on past experience of human existence many concepts have been invented to solve some of natures wierdest mysteryies. It would certainly be revolutionary if something in the universe acted truly randomly.

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

Randomness? What about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle; does that count? I pretty much agree with you, anyway ...

I have a question for the physics whizzes; if the universe is infinitely old, would it not have succumbed to entropy? Something I've wondered and never gotten an answer for ...

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

Quote:

He said that there are things in the universe that are purely random and science could never explain

Did he cite women as an example? ;D

But logic cannot prove everything. It cannot prove our existence. How did it all begin? Science would tell us that nothing can be created out of something. (Ok, I'm sure someone has some sort of bizarre "scientific" way to make money grow on trees...) But logic would tell us that everything has a beginning place and nothing lasts forever (ie, eternity past).

So, at some point, you have to exercise faith in how we got here (or just not give any care). After that, it's quite easy to justify any sort of belief.

kazzmir
Member #1,786
December 2001
avatar

Quote:

I have a question for the physics whizzes; if the universe is infinitely old, would it not have succumbed to entropy? Something I've wondered and never gotten an answer for ...

Ok, i suck at physics and am probably going to fail my physics 2 midterm tommorow, but how about this for an explanation.

The universe is constantly expanding, so after an infinite amount of time entropy should take its toll and all the atoms should be infinitely apart or something along those lines. But maybe the universe expands for a time, then for unknown reasons, contracts back to a single point of matter and energy. Then it explodes again and the process starts all over. This would explain why entropy hasnt forced all the atoms apart. of course now we have to deal with why everything would come back together again,. but oh wel.

Quote:

How did it all begin?

You probably wont like my theory on that, but i say things always existed. Our reality existed an infinite time ago and will exist and infinite time from now. Its incomprehendable for the human mind, so i usually dont bother to think about it.

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

Quote:

infinite time from now. Its incomprehendable for the human mind

It's illogical that something logical cannot be comprehended by any human mind. 8-)

Bruce Perry
Member #270
April 2000

Someone who hasn't a clue about women said:

Did he cite women as an example? ;D

I pity you.

OK, if you want my opinion, here goes: I have been christened, but I hardly ever think religious thoughts. I have reached no conclusion as to whether I personally believe in God. But, on the premise that God exists, serious Christianity is a bit of a joke really (the same goes for any religion). God just wants to go about his business. He doesn't want people across the world praising him day in day out - have you ever thought how annoying it must be? The Monty Python folk had the right idea. ;)

Now we just need Shawn to post and confirm how annoying it is to be idolised everywhere he goes. ;D

--
Bruce "entheh" Perry [ Web site | DUMB | Set Up Us The Bomb !!! | Balls ]
Programming should be fun. That's why I hate C and C++.
The brxybrytl has you.

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

someone who doesn't know what a joke is said:

I pity you.

Quote:

Now we just need Shawn to post and confirm how annoying it is to be idolised everywhere he goes

DUMB is the best music lib I've ever used. bows down

Bruce Perry
Member #270
April 2000

Someone who must make a hell of a lot of jokes then, said:

DUMB is the best music lib I've ever used. *bows down*

Why thank you kind sir. :)

--
Bruce "entheh" Perry [ Web site | DUMB | Set Up Us The Bomb !!! | Balls ]
Programming should be fun. That's why I hate C and C++.
The brxybrytl has you.

Plucky
Member #1,346
May 2001
avatar

Quote:

It would certainly be revolutionary if something in the universe acted truly randomly.

The theory of quantum mechanics revolves around chance. E.g. the location of an electron in an atom is governed by a probability curve or something like that (I'm not a physicist.) In other words, QM says certain things in the universe does act truly randomly. Einstein had a famous quote: "I do not believe that God plays dice." The general consensus is that he does. ;)

Quote:

The problem is when people dismiss things as impossible because science can't explain them... A certian breed of individual thinks that these things are scientifically impossible so the Bible must be lying

This certain breed of individuals are too narrow-minded. They should examine another possibility: that humans are fallible, and so there may be some misinterpretation or exaggeration. If someone was in awe, and I mean truly in awe, of something, and he was going to tell his friends all about it, one can easily imagine the human tendency to exaggerate.

Quote:

if the universe is infinitely old, would it not have succumbed to entropy?

My first comment is that cosmologists believe that the universe is somewhere between 13-17 billion years old, not infinitely old. Second, if the fate of the universe is that it'll grow forever (the fate of the universe is still under intense debate), it'll be many, many trillion years before it truly fizzles out. We have a long way to go.

Quote:

Science would tell us that nothing can be created out of something.

I totally agree with science here. Even I can create nothing! :D Obviously you meant the other way around, that something can be created out of nothing. Well at first glance, science says this is possible! Relativistic quantum field theory states that "there is a finite probability that a
particle-antiparticle pair -- such as an interacting electron-positron -- can be created from a vacuum."

Quote:

But logic would tell us that everything has a beginning place and nothing lasts forever

I don't think this is logic. It was once generally believed (and many people probably still believe) that there always was and always will be the universe. This position seems to me just as logical. Rather, observation would lead us to believe that the (current) universe had a beginning. If the sun seems to have existed for all of human recorded time, why not infer that it was always this way? Or why not infer that the sun might not have existed in the past? Does logic determine which position is correct? Or do we deduce from observation and not logic that one of these positions is more correct.

Disclaimer: "vacuum" doesn't necessarily mean total absence of matter or energy. "At first glance..."

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

Quote:

I totally agree with science here. Even I can create nothing!

And I agree with you for agreeing with me. ;) Ok, so I meant to say "nothing can be created from nothing".

By "nothing" (the second one) I mean a total absense of anything. Like void. Nothing. So even, if we want to say something can be created from a "vacuum" (which is something, not nothing) - then we have to say that "vacuum" existed forever.

Which brings me back to the whole point of the "creation" or "starting point" of the universe is unscientific.

Quote:

Disclaimer: "vacuum" doesn't necessarily mean total absence of matter or energy. "At first glance..."

Don't use a disclaimer there! That made everything you said about something and nothing worth nothing. Or something like that. ;)

But I agree with what you previously said. The topic of the beginning of time (or whatever it shall be called) is much more fascinating than that of "god" vs "no god".

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

Quote:

This certain breed of individuals are too narrow-minded.

That was my point :)

Quote:

If someone was in awe, and I mean truly in awe, of something, and he was going to tell his friends all about it, one can easily imagine the human tendency to exaggerate.

Most of what Jesus did (for example) was in public and before many witnesses. The Bible isn't just telling stories :)

Quote:

My first comment is that cosmologists believe that the universe is somewhere between 13-17 billion years old, not infinitely old. Second, if the fate of the universe is that it'll grow forever (the fate of the universe is still under intense debate), it'll be many, many trillion years before it truly fizzles out. We have a long way to go.

I wasn't refering to any comment you made. It's just something I've wondered about.

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Evert
Member #794
November 2000
avatar

Quote:

Randomness? What about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle; does that count? I pretty much agree with you, anyway ...

The uncertainty principle has to do with certain types of observabels, not with wether or not the laws of physics are statistical: for instance, you can't know about the momentum and the location of a particle at the same time with a high degree of accurately, and determining one of them radically alters the other (in an unpredictable way).

Quote:

I have a question for the physics whizzes; if the universe is infinitely old, would it not have succumbed to entropy? Something I've wondered and never gotten an answer for ...

As plucky said, the universe isn't infinitely old. However, as it ages, the entropy will always grow. What I think you mean is if the universe will succumb to heat, since an increase in entropy is an increase in heat?
I guess that would depend on the rate of cooling due to the expansion of the universe...

Trezker
Member #1,739
December 2001
avatar

Personally I think the universe is infinite in size and time, but it's not filled with matter.

We can se thousands of galaxys and calculate the age of their matter and how these galaxys expand from a common center. If we call our collection of galaxys a universe, what is there that says there can't be more than one universe?
If there would be more than one, would we have to make a new name for the infinite void or for this collection of galaxys.

What would happen to light that reaches the end of the universe(assuming there is and end)?
Would it turn back, wrap to the other side, or crash like into a wall and make it expand.

And a side note. I've passed 300 posts, I was thinking about doing something special on nr 300, but I rushed past it and now I'll have to wait to nr 400. Hmpf!

Michael Jensen
Member #2,870
October 2002
avatar

Quote:

We can se thousands of galaxys and calculate the age of their matter and how these galaxys expand from a common center. If we call our collection of galaxys a universe, what is there that says there can't be more than one universe?
If there would be more than one, would we have to make a new name for the infinite void or for this collection of galaxys.

Like biverse or triverse or verses.....?

Quote:

And a side note. I've passed 300 posts, I was thinking about doing something special on nr 300, but I rushed past it and now I'll have to wait to nr 400. Hmpf!

How do you tell how many posts you have?

and I have another question too -- I've heard different scientists saying different things, one said that we have seen the edge of the entire universe and that we can see all of it etc (and thats what I thot I learned in HS! that it was spiral shaped or something), and the other said something like no we havent we just keep looking out farther and farther and finding more planets and more things and blah -- any help?

gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
avatar

It's our galaxy that's spiral-shaped, not the universe :)

--
Move to the Democratic People's Republic of Vivendi Universal (formerly known as Sweden) - officially democracy- and privacy-free since 2008-06-18!

james_lohr
Member #1,947
February 2002

What would be interesting would be if it was possible to calculate the probability of evolution. Or what I mean is certain stages in evolution - ones that there is no half-way stage eg from a single pump system into a double pumb circulation system. I'm not saying that I don't believe in evolution but if it was calclated as something like 10^(some large number) well then trillions of years is nowhere near long enough. Abviously this type of calculation would be impossible but ut was just a thought...

Michael Jensen
Member #2,870
October 2002
avatar

wait a minute -- I'm probably wrong but isnt our galaxy the one with 9 planets in it and a sun? or is a galaxy a collection of these, uh units, and what are these units called then?

anyways -- I still heard some wierd scientist say that we've allready seen every star or something along those lines -- I could be remembering wrong -- anybody have any idea what he was talking about?

edit: you're quote is hillarious gnolam...

nowiz
Member #3,099
January 2003
avatar

A galaxy is a collection of stars, IIRC... Our sun/star is only a (very small) part of our galaxy.

_____
who cares?

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

A galaxy is a collection of stars. People refer to the sun (a star) plus the planets and whatnot as a solar system.

gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
avatar

Ick! sounds like you need to read up on your astronomy :)

A solar system is a system of planets orbiting a sun, and galaxies are huge collections of stars, dust etc (ours is the spiral galaxy "Milky Way").

--
Move to the Democratic People's Republic of Vivendi Universal (formerly known as Sweden) - officially democracy- and privacy-free since 2008-06-18!

Michael Jensen
Member #2,870
October 2002
avatar

what is the smaller part called?
edit: oohhhh right -- I suppose I could have paid more attention in science class in school.... ;D

gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
avatar

[over-simplification]If you point a telescope out into space you will receive light from every star that's in your field of view, basically (weaker and more red-shifted the farther away they are, naturally)... it's just a matter of making anything out of those weak signals... and if you get to the point where you can't see any background light beyond what you're pointed at, you've reached the edge.[/over-simplification]

Here's one story about it

--
Move to the Democratic People's Republic of Vivendi Universal (formerly known as Sweden) - officially democracy- and privacy-free since 2008-06-18!

Mars
Member #971
February 2001
avatar

Michael Jensen said:

wait a minute -- I'm probably wrong but isnt our galaxy the one with 9 planets in it and a sun? or is a galaxy a collection of these, uh units, and what are these units called then?

That's a solar system. A galaxy is the collection of very many solar systems. The galaxy that our solar system is located in is the milkyway.

--
This posting is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.



Go to: