civver_764
Deity
You lost me.
Existence of God (split from old thread)
- Thread starter MichaelP
- Start date
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
You were implying that my measurements can't be measured. If they can't be measured, we can't say anything about them, including whether they're finite or infinite. I am pretty sure all my measurements are finite, though.
Just like with the universe you cant say you are sure till you have the final proof.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I mean yeah, that is exactly what I'm saying, but.. the thing is that my measurements can be measured, my doctor did so 2 months ago.
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
And until someone dies and comes back, no one can say anything about an afterlife.
There are billions of physical operations going on inside your body at every moment. How many do you control? Very litte. You are not your body.
The usual procedure is to go beyond physical senses and intellect through control of your mind...
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
billions <> infinite
Where do you think are the limits of your mind or (sub)consciousness? Quite hard to measure...
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Which observations indicate the universe stopped expanding?
civver_764
Deity
Ah, that's not what I was implying. I was just asking, who do you think you are?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
This touches on the point that the universe may have had a size that was already 14 billion light years in size, and the effect from the edges (then) is just getting to us, and that is why the universe is as old as we claim, but in that time it has expanded by the same factor or has even been accelerating. The idea being if the universe was not smaller in scale, what force would have produced the energy needed to change the universe from a resting state to an expanding state.
The problem is the current calculations assume a size of the universe, but cannot pinpoint it to a specific size. If one adjusted for a larger size, the math would more than likely work out, but that may introduce an outside manipulation going on at the edges of what we can observe. We accept that whatever happened, it was immediate. But we want to conclude that energy died and somehow restarted later. What we cannot accept is that the energy could have come from every point of a mature 14 billion light year across universe. We want to think it was centralized, at one point only, and somehow emerged later, as appearing to be a homogeneous restart.
And that is the problem with assumption and evidence and a lack of observation. We can only observe in hindsight. If we claim that we can see the remnant of the actual event, how can we claim that there was a tremendously long period of darkness between the first event and the universe actually doing anything energy related?
If you look up at his original caveat, I think it's fair. We don't know how big the universe is. And we only know that it was expanding for regions for which we have data. Expansion could be a local phenomenon. Expansion might have discontinued, but we don't have the data yet. etc etc.
It's important to hold them as possible theories. And that way, we can test them as we get new data.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Given that my mind is contained in my brain, which is finite, it's sensible to assume that my subconscious and other parts of my mind are finite too.
civver_764
Deity
What makes you think your mind is "contained" in your brain?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Because that's the truth, as far as we can tell. What makes you think it isn't?
civver_764
Deity
It seems obvious to me that the mind is separate than the brain organ. If you look at the brain you're not going to see thoughts and feelings and experiences.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
None. It's the sort of thought experiment you often find in high level physics. The point is that the evidence is suggestive, not conclusive. Jumping to the conclusion draws a box to contain your thought processes.
J
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
If it was obvious, there would be evidence. But you got nothin
Every single piece of evidence we investigate points to the fact that the mind resides in our skull. If that's a coincidence then fine, but you can't just start making things up before such evidence turns up.
Every single piece of evidence we investigate points to the fact that the mind resides in our skull. If that's a coincidence then fine, but you can't just start making things up before such evidence turns up.
civver_764
Deity
So are you saying that humans are their brains?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
No, obviously we also have things like toes and butts and noses. Our minds seem to originate from within the brain, but that doesn't mean that we are our brains. I am open to the idea that our minds originate elsewhere, but for now all the evidence seems to rather strongly point to the brain as the origin, so it doesn't make sense to me to assume anything else. Without more information that suggests otherwise, it would be intellectually dishonest of me to assume something other than that at this time.
Similar threads
