The Metaphysical Afternoon Thread

The human mind can’t comprehend infinity. Without beginnings and endings, we just get confused. It’s easy to say it, but if you try to think it, you’ll come up blank.

I don’t believe in time as a dimension. Time is only known because of change. If nothing changed (including our minds), then there would be no time. But something changing, or the configuration of the universe moving about, is not a dimension in itself, that’s just movement within the 3 spacial dimensions. Time is an ordering principle in the human mind which allows us to plot things on a line; to note events as - first, second, third, etc. Without this, our minds would be useless, because all perceptions would jumble into one, and we’d be unable to determine now from then, and so essentially vegetables.

By saying time is not a dimension I mean it is not something we move through. It doesn’t exist outside of our mind. In my opinion, that is.

No, infinity is not impossible, I’m just saying that it’s an abstract concept, so if you claim it as your belief, you can’t expect people to see any logic in it.

When they looked to see how much the debris had slowed, they found the expansion accelerating.

The most obvious cause of this, is the gravitational attraction of some mass outside the known universe.

We can not observe the mass outside our universe because it is attracting all the light, mass, and energy, in all directions. Infinity.

Would the Bang appear differently if it were actually sucked into the three dimensional void we percieve as our universe through some other dimensional point?

Nice ramblings, happy infinity.

It’s probably a bad idea to generalize scientists at this point in time, for they don’t all believe the big bang came from nothing. In fact, many of them are aware of the valid idea ‘nothing comes from nothing’, and so rather say that they don’t know what it came form. String theorists seem to think it came about due to some sort of split, or break in the symmetry, between our dimensions and higher ones. I find this idea thoroughly intriguing and interesting. It would certainly explain a lot, and might well help to bridge the gap between science and mysticism.

Yes, this is true, I have generally found that the ‘common knowledge’ of science is patchy and flawed. I often see people like Richard Dawkins in the media and know that they are clearly skipping over important concepts and factors, and so distorting the facts, which they can get away with because the majority of viewers have not made a proper study of the subject. So the reader / viewer might just say, “well, this guy’s clearly a well-educated scientist, so he must be right, I guess I believe him.”