What will remain in this universe forever?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby Arminius » Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:27 pm

Alf wrote:
stellamonika wrote:Anything which cannot be destroyed will remain in this universe forever. In the school textbooks, I read "energy can neither be created nor be destroyed."

But, vast majority of people say that nothing shall remain in this universe forever. Is it correct?

I believe that there is only one possibility (soul): Everything.

You mean that everything that was, is and will be is always the same and merely changes from matter to energy and from energy to matter and will remain forever?

Greetings from Spain. :)

Image
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5437
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby iambiguous » Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:50 pm

phyllo wrote:
On the other hand, how would you go about demonstrating this to others? Given, for example, that you have no capacity even to demonstrate the persistence of "I" [as I encompassed it above] beyond the grave?
I have told you maybe a dozen times that since information of what happens "beyond the grave" is so sketchy and unreliable, I don't live my life based on anything that may or may not be there.

Therefore, I don't demonstrate anything about it. Conceivably I could list some of the unreliable/contradictory/vague accounts of "beyond the grave" as a demonstration of why I take that approach.


But don't I always make the distinction between those who do accept that "here and now" their understanding of "beyond the grave" is "sketchy and unreliable", and those who speak of it as though this was actually something that mere mortals can know.

Not only that, but any number of folks will predicate the behaviors that they choose on this side of the grave precisely on that which they claim to forecast beyond the grave.

It's just that some will go even further. They will also judge [and sometimes punish] those who choose other behaviors instead.

There are lots of Big Questions like that though. And all we can do is to speculate about them in places like this.


phyllo wrote:Isn't a better place for that ILoveWildGuesses.com?

Of course, it could be discussed in terms of some observable physical processes - thermodynamics perhaps - in a science/cosmology forum maybe, but not in this place.


Yes, but, philosophically, some guesses seem to revolve entirely around the meaning that is derived from the definitions that the objectivists here insist are the one and the only starting point for engaging these discussions.

And not just pertaining to the either/or world.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21856
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby phyllo » Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:04 pm

But don't I always make the distinction between those who do accept that "here and now" their understanding of "beyond the grave" is "sketchy and unreliable", and those who speak of it as though this was actually something that mere mortals can know.
According to you, mortals can't know anything because 'really knowing' requires absolute certainty which in turn requires knowing ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING. You always disappear into that pit whenever it seems that mortals might know enough to make reasonable decisions in at least specific instances.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10010
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby iambiguous » Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:17 pm

James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote: If others don't define the words that encompass your own "general description" of human interaction here [before and after the grave] as you do, are they or are they not necessarily wrong?

Words have definition (whether stated or not) so that an under-standing can be made within the mind.


That's just common sense though. My point is the extent to which we are able to demonstrate that the understanding in our own mind is the understanding that all reasonable/rational men and women are obligated to share.

Here as that relates to speculation regarding things that will remain forever in the universe. In what may well be but one of an infinite number of additional universes.

Thus I propose that there may well be limits regarding the extent to which our own definitions here are in fact in sync with the very ontological [and perhaps teleological] understanding of "existence" itself.

James S Saint wrote: If they don't care to have an understanding, such as yourself, it doesn't matter how they define their words. But if they DO want to have an understanding, then they can gain one by defining their words such that an understanding is formed (the whole point in defining the concepts/words to begin with). If they find someone who at least claims that his words come together to form a solid, coherent, and comprehensive understanding, then perhaps the search is over. Investigate the coherency of his words to find out if solid under-standing has in fact been formed and found.


Again, what matters to me regarding the meaning/definition of the words that I choose here is in recognizing that they are entangled in an existential contraption -- "I" -- that necessarily reflects an "understanding" embodied in what I have come to think about these things over the course of my "lived life" up until "here and now".

I certainly don't profess a TOE that explains...everything? Let alone one -- anchored? -- to the Real God.

iambiguous wrote:Or are you admitting that while you are right from your side, others may well be right from their side. Depending on which set of assumptions/premises reflects the one true reality.

James S Saint wrote: I have stated that many times. If you were paying attention rather than ranting, you would have known that.


Pleases note particular posts in which you have acknowledged this?

As we well know, not many objectivists will.

After all, if you acknowledge that others may well be right [regarding both the either/or and the is/ought world] then you are acknowledging that you may well be wrong here and now.

That, given new experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge [in a world teeming with contingency chance and change], you may well change your mind completely about RM/AO and the Real God.

Are you acknowledging this?

And, if so, how far removed is that from the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. At least insofar as that pertains to what does not last forever on this side of the grave.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21856
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby James S Saint » Sat Sep 30, 2017 2:52 am

iambiguous wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Words have definition (whether stated or not) so that an under-standing can be made within the mind.


That's just common sense though. My point is the extent to which we are able to demonstrate that the understanding in our own mind is the understanding that all reasonable/rational men and women are obligated to share.

No one is obligated to use the same definitions and thus not obligated to share the same understanding. The point is to find ONE that you can comprehend yourself. If you can comprehend at least one rational ontology, so can many others. But that doesn't mean that everyone has to share the same ontology. Why would they?

iambiguous wrote:Here as that relates to speculation regarding things that will remain forever in the universe. In what may well be but one of an infinite number of additional universes.

Thus I propose that there may well be limits regarding the extent to which our own definitions here are in fact in sync with the very ontological [and perhaps teleological] understanding of "existence" itself.

"Because I don't yet understand, it might be impossible for there to be understanding."
.. but then, that comes from someone who admits to not understand, so what does that really say .. nothing.

iambiguous wrote:Again, what matters to me regarding the meaning/definition of the words that I choose here is in recognizing that they are entangled in an existential contraption -- "I" -- that necessarily reflects an "understanding" embodied in what I have come to think about these things over the course of my "lived life" up until "here and now".

Meaningless, double-talk babble - "I only understand what I have come to understand up until now and that is all that I understand of what can be understanding that only happens to be what I understand of understanding. Understand?"

iambiguous wrote:I certainly don't profess a TOE that explains...everything?

Obviously you do. You profess that there can be no understanding of anything and thus of everything. And in regards to yourself, I'm sure you are right. But that seems to be the way you want it. Fine. Keep yourself forever in your little dasein dilemma to your heart's content.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25428
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:17 pm

phyllo wrote:
But don't I always make the distinction between those who do accept that "here and now" their understanding of "beyond the grave" is "sketchy and unreliable", and those who speak of it as though this was actually something that mere mortals can know.
According to you, mortals can't know anything because 'really knowing' requires absolute certainty which in turn requires knowing ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING. You always disappear into that pit whenever it seems that mortals might know enough to make reasonable decisions in at least specific instances.


No, I make the crucial distinction between that which seems to be in sync with the laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical world around us and the logical rules of language, and that which appears instead to be more a matter of one's personal opinion.

And, in my view, rooted "for all practical purposes" in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

To wit:

The objective either/or world and the subjective/subjunctive is/ought world.

I merely note the obvious:

That even with respect to the either/or world we have to take this into account:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

You do grasp the implications of this don't you?

And that's before we get to the part of grappling with whether or not the ontological nature of existence has a teleological component in turn.

Take for example the recent shootings in Las Vegas.

There are the facts. Things that can be ascertained, encompassed and then reasonably described as true for all of us. This happened, this did not.

Then there are the individual reactions to the shootings. Conflicting political narratives with respect to, among other things, gun laws.

But how on earth could any mere mortal ever hope to comprehend it in the context of "all there is"? The explanation that takes into account everything we would need to be know about the very metaphysical nature of Reality?

This part:

Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to one another.

Go ahead, try to encompass the Las Vegas shooting without disappearing into one or another gap between what you think you know about it here and now "in your head" and the all-encompassing truth about it.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21856
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:46 pm

Knowledge is not and can not ever be absolute so one can only work from within the limitation of what is actually known
Attempting to understand the ontological nature of physical realty from such a limited perspective is simply not possible
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:19 pm

James S Saint wrote:No one is obligated to use the same definitions and thus not obligated to share the same understanding. The point is to find ONE that you can comprehend yourself. If you can comprehend at least one rational ontology, so can many others. But that doesn't mean that everyone has to share the same ontology. Why would they?


No, the point is the extent to which the one you comprehend yourself can be communicated to others such that they agree to share it. And then the extent to which that definition/meaning can be demonstrated to be that which all rational men and women are obligated to share.

Take for example the word "freedom".

Now, in the context of the shooting in Las Vegas, how ought all reasonable men and women define and understand the meaning of that word when the discussion shifts from "was Stephen Paddock free to purchase the weapons he did?" to "ought private citizens be free to purchase such weapons?"


iambiguous wrote:Here as that relates to speculation regarding things that will remain forever in the universe. In what may well be but one of an infinite number of additional universes.

Thus I propose that there may well be limits regarding the extent to which our own definitions here are in fact in sync with the very ontological [and perhaps teleological] understanding of "existence" itself.

James S Saint wrote:"Because I don't yet understand, it might be impossible for there to be understanding."
.. but then, that comes from someone who admits to not understand, so what does that really say .. nothing.


Note to others:

Has he really addressed my point here?

I'm not arguing that it is impossible to know, only that I have yet to come across a mere mortal who has proposed an argument that convinces me that he or she knows.

And, that, even if it did convince me, that's a long, long way from closing the gap between what we think we know in our head here and now and all that would need to be known to be absolutely, unequivocally certain of the whole truth regarding the very "thing" that existence is.

iambiguous wrote:Again, what matters to me regarding the meaning/definition of the words that I choose here is in recognizing that they are entangled in an existential contraption -- "I" -- that necessarily reflects an "understanding" embodied in what I have come to think about these things over the course of my "lived life" up until "here and now".

James S Saint wrote:Meaningless, double-talk babble - "I only understand what I have come to understand up until now and that is all that I understand of what can be understanding that only happens to be what I understand of understanding. Understand?"


Again, choose a particular context in which the definition and the meaning of particular words are well known to come into conflict and let's discuss the extent to which our own understanding of them may or may not be in sync with what would need to be known in order to grasp the objective meaning that all rational men and women would be obligated to share.

iambiguous wrote:I certainly don't profess a TOE that explains...everything?

James S Saint wrote:Obviously you do. You profess that there can be no understanding of anything and thus of everything. And in regards to yourself, I'm sure you are right. But that seems to be the way you want it. Fine. Keep yourself forever in your little dasein dilemma to your heart's content.


Look, if I note time and time again that my own arguments here are no less "existential contraptions" then, sure, you can insist that this is my own TOE.

On the other hand, let's try this:

1] pick a moral/political issue that we are all familiar with
2] note your own moral/political narrative regarding it
3] note how this narrative is not rooted in the manner in which I have come to construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Or, instead, as I suspect, is your own argument here but one more rendition of this:

1] there is a "real me" that transcends contingency, chance and change
2] this "real me" is in sync with one or another understanding of "virtue", "truth", "justice"
3] "virtue", "truth", "justice" as embedded in an objective understanding of Nature

In your case, embedded in the meaning and the definition that you give to the words encompassing RM/AO and the Real God.

After all, you tell me, what on earth does "[t]he reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = 'The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is'" actually mean as this pertains to human interactions that come into conflict over the definition and the meaning of words that we come across everyday in the is/ought world?

Instead [in my view] your defense of RM/AO and the Real God is embedded tautologically [circularly] in the assumption that the meaning and the definition that you give to the words in your "general description" "analysis" of it is by default the starting point in any discussion.

That way you can ever and always take folks up into the stratosphere of what Will Durant called "the epistemologists".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21856
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby iambiguous » Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:03 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:Knowledge is not and can not ever be absolute so one can only work from within the limitation of what is actually known
Attempting to understand the ontological nature of physical realty from such a limited perspective is simply not possible


Here and now I agree.

But where all such discussions of this sort get tricky is in the gap between the opinions that we express here in venues like ILP, and all that would need to be known in order to be in sync with that which all rational men and women are in fact obligated to express in turn.

In fact [if it is a fact], we don't even know if that is within the reach of the human mind/brain. And, further, we don't even know whether, if it is within the reach of the human mind/brain, the human mind/brain is within reach of autonomy.

And that's all before we get to the truly mind boggling questions:

1] why something and not nothing?
2] why this something and not another something?

And, then, in noting that something does in fact exist because we do in fact think that something does in fact exist, how in fact did it come into existence...and will it in fact ever stop existing?

And that brings us here:

Bryan Magee:

For a period of two to three years between the ages of nine and twelve I was in thrall to puzzlement about time. I would lie awake in bed at night in the dark thinking something along the following lines. I know there was a day before yesterday, and a day before that and a day before that and so on...Before everyday there must have been a day before. So it must be possible to go back like that for ever and ever and ever...Yet is it? The idea of going back for ever and ever was something I could not get hold of: it seemed impossible. So perhaps, after all, there must have been a beginning somewhere. But if there was a beginning, what had been going on before that? Well, obviously, nothing---nothing at all---otherwise it could not be the beginning. But if there was nothing, how could anything have got started? What could it have come from? Time wouldn't just pop into existence---bingo!--out of nothing, and start going, all by itself. Nothing is nothing, not anything. So the idea of a beginning was unimaginable, which somehow made it seem impossible too. The upshot was that it seemed to be impossible for time to have had a beginning and impossible not for it to have had a beginning.

I must be missing something here, I came to think. There are only these two alternatives so one of them must be right. They can't both be impossible. So I would switch my concentration from one to the other, and then when it had exhausted itself, back again, trying to figure out where I had gone wrong; but I never discovered.

I realized a similar problem existed with regard to space. I remember myself as a London evacuee in Market Harborough---I must have been ten or eleven at the time---lying on my back in the grass in a park and trying to penetrate a cloudless blue sky with my eyes and thinking something like this: "If I went straight up into the sky, and kept on going in a straight line, why wouldn't I be able to just keep on going for ever and ever and ever? But that's impossible. Why isn't it possible? Surely, eventually, I'd have to come to some sort of end. But why? If I bumped up against something eventually, wouldn't that have to be something in space? And if it was in space wouldn't there have to be something on the other side of it if only more space? On the other hand, if there was no limit, endless space couldn't just be, anymore than endless time could.


In other words, how would speculation of this sort be intertwined into a discussion regarding what will remain in the universe forever?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21856
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:41 pm

The question why something rather than nothing exists is actually an easy one to answer. It is because an absolute vacuum can not persist due to the instability
of quantum fluctuations. Questions about whether or not time is eternal or space is infinite are way harder to answer. But one should as a rule where physics is
concerned avoid thinking that just because something is counter intuitive it cannot be true. Counter intuition is not a reliable indicator of what is or is not true

Here is a wonderful example of something that I find very counter intuitive even though it is true and I know it is true

From the external reference frame of an observer like a human being it takes a photon 8 minutes I7 seconds to travel
from the Sun to the Earth but from its internal reference frame it takes precisely no time at all to travel this distance

And so my counter intuition does not stop photons from not experiencing time while actually travelling through time at a finite speed

A far more reliable means are the laws of physics. If something violates them then it is probably not true. I say probably for science is
primarily an inductive discipline. But this is still way more reliable than counter intuition which should be avoided as much as possible
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby phyllo » Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:00 pm

From the external reference frame of an observer like a human being it takes a photon 8 minutes I7 seconds to travel
from the Sun to the Earth but from its internal reference frame it takes precisely no time at all to travel this distance

And so my counter intuition does not stop photons from not experiencing time while actually travelling through time at a finite speed
Photons aren't alive ... they don't experience anything, they don't measure anything.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10010
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:17 am

Yes I know but I was merely demonstrating how hard I find the concept of time dilation with regard to Special Relativity
Try telling Ur God that photons are not alive because he thinks that rocks can self value even though they have no brain
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby James S Saint » Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:32 am

Feynman had the one answer to give when anyone ever asked "why?" - "Shut up and calculate".

True Quantum Mechanics never, ever explains "why" anything happens. QM is entirely 100% about statistical measurements. A type of occurrence is measured 10,000 times and the results form a statistical distribution. Interpolation and extrapolation are then used to smooth the curve and make precise predictions of what will happen. It says nothing at all about WHY anything happens, only the probability of what will happen.

Any and all theories concerning Quantum Mechanical reasons and causes are entirely the imaginings and fantasies of individual physicists. The science of QM has absolutely nothing to do with "WHY".

So as far as "quantum fluctuations" causing existence, there is zero science involved in that ontological and irrational theory (probabilities do not cause things). True QM makes no claims whatsoever concerning causation of anything.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25428
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:20 am

I agree science does not ask why questions as all it is concerned with is observing natural phenomena and explaining how it functions
Why questions are by definition ontological and so are therefore non scientific and is why science does not have to bother with them
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:36 am

I know that you do not think quantum fluctuations cause virtual particles to pop in and out of existence but I think your objection is ideological and not scientific
The only difference between virtual and real particles is how long their lifespan is. So they are not called virtual particles because they do not exist but because
their existence compared to real particles is much shorter. And so it is not ontology as you falsely claim. Since science does not do ontology as you already know
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby James S Saint » Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:23 am

surreptitious75 wrote:I know that you do not think quantum fluctuations cause virtual particles to pop in and out of existence but I think your objection is ideological and not scientific.

Not at all. It is an issue of not conflating the map with the terrain. Fluctuation is a statistical observation. It says nothing at all about WHY anything happens. Statistical observations have nothing to do with causation ("correlation is not causation"). The actual question would be "Why are quantum states fluctuating?"

surreptitious75 wrote:The only difference between virtual and real particles is how long their lifespan is.

Noooo. A "virtual particle" is not actually a particle at all. It is a chosen amount of energy to be treated as if it was a bundled up particle. Virtual particles are entirely conceptual, not real particles at all. I do that same thing with my "afflates". I could validly call an afflate a "virtual particle" merely because it is treated like one. But I prefer to stay away from this kind of confusion. "Virtual" means "sort-of-like-but-not-really", just like a "virtual reality game".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25428
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:29 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:I agree science does not ask why questions as all it is concerned with is observing natural phenomena and explaining how it functions
Why questions are by definition ontological and so are therefore non scientific and is why science does not have to bother with them


"Why" questions are simply questions that ask what is the cause of some given event.
"Why did this happen?" means "what caused this to happen?"
Such questions assume that the event has a cause. Which is not always the case.
There are people -- strictly speaking morons -- who think that there must be a why behind everything.
These are pseudo-intellectuals who start with what they want to see rather than with what is already there.
Not every question is answerable. You must first ask: is there an answer to this question?
It is very wrong to say that science does not ask WHY questions.
It does. It is merely not obsessed with them (the way JSS is.)
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3478
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:41 pm

If we try to understand "why" questions more generally, we can say that "why" questions are fundamentally questions that ask "how can we predict/derive an event based on/from events that preceded it?" Which reveals that there is not much difference between "why"s and "how"s. They are merely two sides of the same coin. This also means that science asks "why" questions all of the time contrary to what morons are claiming.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3478
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby James S Saint » Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:53 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Such questions assume that the event has a cause. Which is not always the case.

... is always the case.
Magnus Anderson wrote:There are people -- strictly speaking morons -- who think that there must be a why behind everything.

.."Morons" can't figure out why there always is.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Not every question is answerable.

..not by "morons".

:icon-rolleyes:
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25428
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:34 pm

Anderson wrote:
Such questions assume that the event has a cause. Which is not always the case

Can you name a single event that does not have a cause and do not say the universe because it is not actually known if it is eternal
So name something that happens within the universe that has no cause. I do not mean something that has a cause which is unknown
I will be very surprised indeed if you can genuinely answer this question
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:18 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:Can you name a single event that does not have a cause and do not say the universe because it is not actually known if it is eternal
So name something that happens within the universe that has no cause. I do not mean something that has a cause which is unknown
I will be very surprised indeed if you can genuinely answer this question


Whatever cannot be predicted at some point in time has no cause.
Very simple stuff.

The question of "does an event has a cause?" is a matter of personal judgment.
It's no different from questions such as "does this or that person have cancer?"
You collect some amount of evidence and then you judge based on it.

The number of events we cannot predict is far greater than the number of events we can predict.
Unfortunately, people only focus on what is positive ignoring what is negative which leads to this delusion that predictable events are not only more numerous than unpredictable events but are actually the only kind of events there are.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3478
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:26 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:Such questions assume that the event has a cause. Which is not always the case.

... is always the case.
Magnus Anderson wrote:There are people -- strictly speaking morons -- who think that there must be a why behind everything.

.."Morons" can't figure out why there always is.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Not every question is answerable.

..not by "morons".

:icon-rolleyes:


Morons think that the universe works according to their expectations.
Morons expect causes to be everywhere, therefore, causes must be everywhere.
Morons downplay statistics and inductive/synthetic method of thinking in general.
Morons think there are absolutes (e.g. absolute certainty.)
Morons think that 100% certainty means "it's going to happen".
Morons think that only deduction has logically necessary conclusions.
Morons don't understand what logical necessity is.
Morons don't understand that inductive conclusions are also logically necessary.
Morons don't understand that deduction is a superficial tip-of-the-iceberg form of reasoning that is built directly on top of the more fundamental form of reasoning that is induction.
Morons are superficial so they pay an excessive amount of attention to words thereby placing what is real far into the background.
I can go on if you want . . . there is a lot to say about morons.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3478
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby phyllo » Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:56 pm

Philosophy at its best.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10010
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: What will remain in this universe forever?

Postby iambiguous » Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:48 pm

surreptitious75 wrote: The question why something rather than nothing exists is actually an easy one to answer. It is because an absolute vacuum can not persist due to the instability
of quantum fluctuations. Questions about whether or not time is eternal or space is infinite are way harder to answer. But one should as a rule where physics is
concerned avoid thinking that just because something is counter intuitive it cannot be true. Counter intuition is not a reliable indicator of what is or is not true


The difficulty I [and others] have with explanations of this sort is that they are basically predicated on assumptions we are not able to grasp much beyond, well, assuming that what you say is true.

There are discussions and debates similar to this: https://www.livescience.com/28132-what- ... ebate.html

Now, how would any particular scientist or philosopher finally pin this down such that every and all scientists and philosophers would be obligated to concur?

Let alone being able to explain it to folks like me.

I'm not saying that what you are saying is wrong. Just that to me it is one more example of the gap between words and worlds.

The Big Bang either exploded into existence out of nothing at all or it's Big Bangs all the way down or the Big Bang itself is not the explanation for existence.

I just suspect this is not something that is "easy to know".

surreptitious75 wrote: A far more reliable means are the laws of physics. If something violates them then it is probably not true. I say probably for science is primarily an inductive discipline. But this is still way more reliable than counter intuition which should be avoided as much as possible


Here again we have a general description. Only this one is backed up by all that we have actually come to know about the laws of physics and the reliability of mathematics.

But: physicists continue to explore the extent to which there may or may not be a disconnect between the very, very small and the very, very large.

And one suspects that they are still a long way off from intertwining them into a theory of everything. One in which there does not appear to be a way in which to falsify it.

The rest [again] is this:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21856
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]