I disagree with the certainty with which you state various ideas. Let's take an example. You say the Earth is the centre of the universe. Modern physics and astronomy tells us (based on good evidence) that the universe has no centre. Now it is possible (but I think very unlikely) that you may be right but you'd need to have some very good evidence to convince me.
The Soul
- Thread starter donnann
- Start date
I disagree with the certainty with which you state various ideas. Let's take an example. You say the Earth is the centre of the universe. Modern physics and astronomy tells us (based on good evidence) that the universe has no centre. Now it is possible (but I think very unlikely) that you may be right but you'd need to have some very good evidence to convince me.
We dont have the technology to prove that because we have not traveled out far enough to prove it. The universe is made up of universes. The universes make one big universe with the earths system as center. Wish I had the data to prove this but its not a new idea.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
It's not a new idea it's just unproven. The shape of the universe is, I think, under some debate. The scientific community has no reason to think that it is in the centre and I doubt that many assume that it is.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
We do not need the technology to travel out. We can tell by the small differences in the anisotropy of the universe. We can “see” (via instrumentation and computers) that the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is not perfectly anisotropic, ergo, by looking at the differences between the apparent velocity of opposite sides of the CMB that the visible universe is receding from us at an equal amount so the “center “ of the apparent universe is not the earth or even the Milky Way.Sorry for the very difficult math involved, but this stuff is easy to prove or disprove in the model (which requires math). There are other explanations of course (the laws of physics differ from place to place, the universe may be infinite, or that g!d is just fooling us
with science), however, none of these are really very likely. So it is likely there was a Big Bang (either as a single event or a series of expansions and contractions), that the Relativity Equations are correct (the laws of physics apply everywhere), and earth is not at the middle of it all (just really close in a cosmological sense, the “real center” is only about as far away from us as the Andromeda Galaxy).
If we have to rely on just our sense data, none of quantum mechanics works and the reasons we have teles and computers is just a mass hallucination or (again) g!d tricking us.
If you took a sector of it in a square. Its center. Then there are other universes that are squares also making up one big square. I know this but I am getting migraines which hinders my concentration. The cubes rotate on an axis. So its really cubes.
Sorry for the very difficult math involved, but this stuff is easy to prove or disprove in the model (which requires math). There are other explanations of course (the laws of physics differ from place to place, the universe may be infinite, or that g!d is just fooling us
So it is likely there was a Big Bang (either as a single event or a series of expansions and contractions), that the Relativity Equations are correct (the laws of physics apply everywhere), and earth is not at the middle of it all (just really close in a cosmological sense, the “real center” is only about as far away from us as the Andromeda Galaxy).
If we have to rely on just our sense data, none of quantum mechanics works and the reasons we have teles and computers is just a mass hallucination or (again) g!d tricking us.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Gobbly-goop, dear. The square is an ideal, mathematical figure. No perfect squares exist in reality.
You can, of course, believe in things that are not physically provable. That is what metaphysics is all about. But do not pretend is is known or knowable in a scientific or empirical sense.
You can, of course, believe in things that are not physically provable. That is what metaphysics is all about. But do not pretend is is known or knowable in a scientific or empirical sense.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
donnann, you asked some of us what we disagree with, this is it, I disagree with your view of the universe, and I disagree with how you come to your conclusions. I hope it isn't important to you that I agree with you on these things, because I doubt it will ever happen.
Well I believe the scientific data will speak for itself. I have it all in my head but I just cant get it out yet.
What scientific data? Radarmark just explained how the scientific data in no way supports your view.
Remember there was a time when we confidently thought the Earth was the centre of the solar system. Surprisingly, some loonies still do despite all the evidence against it. We need to face the truth that physically at least we are a small island of life in the arm of a one galaxy among many in an enormous universe. Yes, this can make us feel insignificant (some of us could do with feeling a little less significant) but it should also fill us with wonder that we exist at all. We are as fragile as a butterfly wing in a hurricane. Enjoy the ride. Maybe there is no grand meaning beyond the meaning we make for ourselves.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Not so fast, elumin8... maybe she means metaphysical data and just mis-typed.
Hmm, possibly. What the heck IS metaphysical data anyway?
It means beyond the physical but also the physical.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
I'd say beyond the physical but proposing to explain the physical in some manner.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
But what is this data?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
The data is contained in a book.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Now let's get serious. Data can be contained in a book (or a website or a brain). But its source is really secondary. If the data is physics, we can weigh in with our empirical or scientific hats on. If it is metaphysics, we can weigh in with our rational or philosophical hats on.
I agree ... kind of. But I tend to reserve the word 'data' for the physical, for the repeatable and empirical. Metaphysical claims tend to be more experiential and subjective. That doesn't mean they are worth less but I think are harder to assign truth values or probabilities to. They are more likely assertions: 'I left my body last night.'
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Ah, that is the modern use. I meant the classical sense... like analyzing the possible proofs of g!d or the many ways the physical could have happened. Metaphysical in the sense of Aristotle or Whitehead, usually limited to ontology, cosmology and theology.
Well, I'm a modern kind of guy!
Just found out today that I have an aneurysm in my heart. I also have a very large hole in my heart as well.