|
kola oloye (m)
|
Let no one be confused about the existence of God.Forget theories and the rest of them.
There is a God in heaven that answereth by fire. He is a Spirit,He allows all these theories
for his own Glory. I've tasted the goodness of God and i know for sure that He exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
No, everything doesn't become everything, but the laws that we know do break down, when a singularity is involved. Those of course don't make it nothing (even the notion of "everything bcoming everything" indicates a something).
the point where all laws break down rendering all things indistinguishable is the closest you ll ever get to a definition of nothing. Actually, no. A perfect vacuum is the closest you'll ever get to a definition of nothing. Singularities, with the properties they possess are somethings. How so?
how so? uniformity is relative. absolute uniformity is absolute! I'm not sure i understand. To what or how is uniformity relative? Yes, it indicates that "I" as a thinking subject exists and "I" am involved in thought of contrasting two different ideas. However, that isn't an indictment on the idea of nothing or nothingness, as thinking about those ideas are necessary for several philosophical cosiderations
this argument really depends on your definition of nothing, i still maintain that nothing is just a concept. the universe is yet to provide us with an example of nothing. (empty space isnt nothing) I agree that nothing exists as a concept - which was the point of this segment. Oh, no, I know all that, but within the atom is a great deal of nothing. Protons, neutrons and electrons make a relatively small part of the atom.
like i said earlier, empty space isnt nothing a lot of 'something'works through empty space. But is the internal part of an atom "empty space"? Yes there are things within the atom, but there's also a lot nothing that can be deciphered within the atom. |
|
|
|
|
|
simmy (m)
|
@kag
1. a 'perfect vacuum' is absolute symettry. A singularity is a phenomenon where all laws break down and symettry is absolute. a 'perfect vacuum is a singularity.
2. semantics asides, there are different types of symetrry (your mirror image for instance) but absolute symetry occurs when image 1 is totally indistinguishable from image 2 in ALL respects, which by the way is scientifically impossible since two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, in a singularity, since ALL laws break down, this can happen.
3. the space that exists in the atom is not empty space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pastor AIO
|
1. a 'perfect vacuum' is absolute symettry. A singularity is a phenomenon where all laws break down and symettry is absolute. a 'perfect vacuum is a singularity.
Is this a correct syllogism? I doubt it.
2. semantics asides, there are different types of symetrry (your mirror image for instance) but absolute symetry occurs when image 1 is totally indistinguishable from image 2 in ALL respects, which by the way is scientifically impossible since two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, in a singularity, since ALL laws break down, this can happen.
Correcto! In this state All things are a Unity. I reckon Mathematics would be perfect if 1 plus 1 actually equalled 2. But Alas! 'Tis not so. 3. the space that exists in the atom is not empty space.
Not to mention the fact that Space is not Nothing. It has qualities that can be discerned. |
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
@kag
1. a 'perfect vacuum' is absolute symettry. A singularity is a phenomenon where all laws break down and symettry is absolute. a 'perfect vacuum is a singularity. For the first, you state that "a 'perfect vacuum' is absolute symettry". What exactly would be symmetrical in a perfect vacuum. Are you sure you are talking about the right thing? Second, no, a perfect vacuum isn't a singularity. 2. semantics asides, there are different types of symetrry (your mirror image for instance) but absolute symetry occurs when image 1 is totally indistinguishable from image 2 in ALL respects, which by the way is scientifically impossible since two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, in a singularity, since ALL laws break down, this can happen. What on Earth are you talking about? That one thing may be indistinguishable from another does't indicate that they are in the same space. By the way, you do realise that to posit an argument that objects are symmetrical in a singularity is to indicate that a singulaity is a something, right? 3. the space that exists in the atom is not empty space.
Okay. Fair enough. |
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
Correcto! In this state All things are a Unity. I reckon Mathematics would be perfect if 1 plus 1 actually equalled 2. But Alas! 'Tis not so.
That's interesting. What do you mean? In the macro-world, at least, as far as I can tell, one plus one does equal two. |
|
|
|
|
|
simmy (m)
|
@kag i think what aio is actually trying to say ( which is what ive been trying to say')is that perfect situations cannot exist in nature. nature tries to gype us into seeing what actually doesnt exist. an example you can cut 2 inches into two to get one inch apiece. the one inch can be cut into two to get half an inch. if mathematics was perect you would be able to cut until you get to zero. but that is not the case. u theoretically can continue cutiing forever!!!! isnt that a bit of a contradiciton??? in other words, in reality zero does not exist! its just a concept introduced by the human mind to cope with nature. by extrapolation 1 inch plus 1 inch does not equal a perfect 2 because a perfect 2 does not exist. in actual fact 1 inch plus one inch equals 1.999999999999999 to infinity.or 1 apple plus 1 apple does not equal 2 apples because the 2 apples are not symmetrical and cannot be, hope that made sense  only in a singularity where all laws break down can you get 'perfect' situations, where 1 and 1 really equals 2. two objects can only be perfectly symetrrical if they are so indistinguishable that their is absolutely no way of telling the difference in both as regards space in which they occupy and dimensions. |
|
|
|
|
|
simmy (m)
|
For the first, you state that "a 'perfect vacuum' is absolute symettry". What exactly would be symmetrical in a perfect vacuum. Are you sure you are talking about the right thing?
Second, no, a perfect vacuum isn't a singularity
a perfect vacuum does not exist. but if it did, it would indicate sameness, the sameness of nothing. in other words symmetry, perfect symetry that is
What on Earth are you talking about? That one thing may be indistinguishable from another does't indicate that they are in the same space. By the way, you do realise that to posit an argument that objects are symmetrical in a singularity is to indicate that a singulaity is a something, right?
not necesarily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
@kag
i think what aio is actually trying to say ( which is what ive been trying to say')is that perfect situations cannot exist in nature. nature tries to gype us into seeing what actually doesnt exist. What? Why can't perfect situations exist in nature? That's why I said in the macro world, at least, 1 + 1 does equal 2. The theoretical value of zero as a concept is different from that of 1 and 1 giving 2. Further, as to your example, of course 1 inch plus 1 inch doesn't eqaul a perfect 2 inches; however, a perfect 1 inch plus another perfect 1 inch will equal a perfect 2. In any case, it's the micro-world that prevents the perfection in an inch. Also, 1 apple plus another apple does equal two apples. They don't have to be symmetrical to be two apples. only in a singularity where all laws break down can you get 'perfect' situations, where 1 and 1 really equals 2.
two objects can only be perfectly symetrrical if they are so indistinguishable that their is absolutely no way of telling the difference in both as regards space in which they occupy and dimensions.
Okay? |
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
For the first, you state that "a 'perfect vacuum' is absolute symettry". What exactly would be symmetrical in a perfect vacuum. Are you sure you are talking about the right thing?
Second, no, a perfect vacuum isn't a singularity
a perfect vacuum does not exist. but if it did, it would indicate sameness, the sameness of nothing. in other words symmetry, perfect symetry that is A perfect vacuum probably doesn't exist, but singularities do. I don't think you're using the word "symmetry" correctly. To make an argument on symmetry as a property, one needs to be apprising something. If there's nothing in a perfect vacuum, then there can be no indication or allusion to symmetry. What on Earth are you talking about? That one thing may be indistinguishable from another does't indicate that they are in the same space. By the way, you do realise that to posit an argument that objects are symmetrical in a singularity is to indicate that a singulaity is a something, right?
not necesarily. Necessarily. |
|
|
|
|
|
simmy (m)
|
@kag
why is the macro world different from the micro world,
is the world neatly divided into macro and micro?,
what is the macro if it is not made up of the micro? i.e the micro determines what happens in the macro
which leads to the point im trying to make which is perfection does not exist!
even nature has to approximate !
in nature nothing does not exist, it is impossible for nothing to exist,
so something has to become nothing,
which is where singlarities come in handy,
|
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
@kag
why is the macro world different from the micro world, Simple, for one thing, many of the laws that apply in the macro-world break down in the micro-. Further, several of the things that the macro-world has urged us to consider intuitively impossible, are in fact, possible in the micro. So, for the first, the laws of thermodynamics may be found impractical for the micro-world, and for the latter, the emergence of virtual particles would be counterintuitive. is the world neatly divided into macro and micro?, Neatly? I'D say not. what is the macro if it is not made up of the micro? i.e the micro determines what happens in the macro
which leads to the point im trying to make which is perfection does not exist! even nature has to approximate ! Yes, the macro comprises of the micro, but the behaviour of things in the two separate instances gives reason to differentiate. Also, the micro may not necessary determine what occurs in the macro, as it is certain that the macro also influences occurences in the micro-. As to your second point, I don't see how it follows from the first. How does the fact that the macro-world constitutes of the micro- lead to a point that perfection doesn't exist? As it stands it seems a false syllogism. in nature nothing does not exist, it is impossible for nothing to exist, Why is it impossible for there to be nothing in nature? so something has to become nothing,
which is where singlarities come in handy, So your argument is now that although singularities are somethings, they are conceived as the closest to nothing we can have? If that is indeed your argument, it's still wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
simmy (m)
|
Simple, for one thing, many of the laws that apply in the macro-world break down in the micro-. Further, several of the things that the macro-world has urged us to consider intuitively impossible, are in fact, possible in the micro. So, for the first, the laws of thermodynamics may be found impractical for the micro-world, and for the latter, the emergence of virtual particles would be counterintuitive.
the laws don't exactly break down. they need to be modified. the scientific community since the days of Einstein have been searching for a unifying theory (the theoryof everything which by the way a nigerian scientist claims to have discovered to everyone elses indifference). the micro and macro worlds cannot be seperated, where is the dividing line? whatever happens in the macro should be explainable in the macro and vice-versa. saying the thermo laws are impractical for the macro world is fasle! we havnt just found out (in our limited capacities) how these laws work together.
Neatly? I'D say not.
i dare say it isnt divided at all, or shouldnt be.
Yes, the macro comprises of the micro, but the behaviour of things in the two separate instances gives reason to differentiate. Also, the micro may not necessary determine what occurs in the macro, as it is certain that the macro also influences occurences in the micro-. As to your second point, I don't see how it follows from the first. How does the fact that the macro-world constitutes of the micro- lead to a point that perfection doesn't exist? As it stands it seems a false syllogism
i gave you a simple example to demonstrate how zero does not exist in one of my earlier posts. since im convinced the micro world and the macro world are one and the same, then i can conclude that no absolutes exist, if zero doees not exist, an absolute one cannot exist. what exists in reality is 0.9999999999 to infinity and if an absolute 1 does not exist it means nature approximates in its calculations and perfect situations don't exist. if perfect situations don't exist, then a perfect vacuum will not exist, all you ll have is the closest thing to the perfect situation, which is what a singularity is!, the closest thing to nothing! my point is nothing does not and cannot exist!
So your argument is now that although singularities are somethings, they are conceived as the closest to nothing we can have? If that is indeed your argument, it's still wrong.
you took the words right out of my mouth. and my arguement is right!
|
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
Simple, for one thing, many of the laws that apply in the macro-world break down in the micro-. Further, several of the things that the macro-world has urged us to consider intuitively impossible, are in fact, possible in the micro. So, for the first, the laws of thermodynamics may be found impractical for the micro-world, and for the latter, the emergence of virtual particles would be counterintuitive.
the laws don't exactly break down. they need to be modified. What do you mean by the Laws need to be modified, as opposed to them breaking down at the micro-level? Further, doesn't the notion of modifying a law invalidate the purpose of the law? That is, it ceases to be a law at that point. the scientific community since the days of Einstein have been searching for a unifying theory (the theoryof everything which by the way a nigerian scientist claims to have discovered to everyone elses indifference). the micro and macro worlds cannot be seperated, where is the dividing line? whatever happens in the macro should be explainable in the macro and vice-versa. I agree that scientists have been searching for a unifying theory for decades. Such a theory would need to be able to explain and unify quantum physics with classical physics, that is, the micro and macro worlds. In other words, there exists a division in how both states operate. And, you'D be wrong to say the two cannot be separated - if they couldn't, quantum physics wouldn't be so damn annoying and cool. Also, there's a reason the Nigerian guy has been ignored, and it's not because he's Nigerian. saying the thermo laws are impractical for the macro world is fasle! we havnt just found out (in our limited capacities) how these laws work together. Yeah, I didn't say any of that. Neatly? I'D say not.
i dare say it isnt divided at all, or shouldnt be. Well, it is. Someday some genius or group of geniuses may find a way to fully unite both. Yes, the macro comprises of the micro, but the behaviour of things in the two separate instances gives reason to differentiate. Also, the micro may not necessary determine what occurs in the macro, as it is certain that the macro also influences occurences in the micro-. As to your second point, I don't see how it follows from the first. How does the fact that the macro-world constitutes of the micro- lead to a point that perfection doesn't exist? As it stands it seems a false syllogism
i gave you a simple example to demonstrate how zero does not exist in one of my earlier posts. since im convinced the micro world and the macro world are one and the same, then i can conclude that no absolutes exist, if zero doees not exist, an absolute one cannot exist. what exists in reality is 0.9999999999 to infinity and if an absolute 1 does not exist it means nature approximates in its calculations and perfect situations don't exist. if perfect situations don't exist, then a perfect vacuum will not exist, all you ll have is the closest thing to the perfect situation, which is what a singularity is!, the closest thing to nothing! my point is nothing does not and cannot exist! First, I'm inclined to state that there is a possibility of zero existing. You mentioned something about limited knowledge earlier. It would seem that's applicable here, as we should not conclude dogmatically that something mathematical can't exist based on nothing more than our intuition. Second, again a false syllogism seems to have crept in: the argument for the unlikelihood of a zero in reality is no indication on the likelihood of a one, as they are slightly different conceptions in reality. What may be considered a perfect one? Would one photon suffice? Finally, again, I'm disinclined to believe that a perfect vacuum can't exist. It certainly can. In any case, if we agree that a singuarity is something then we are back to the beginning of the line that started the discussion (and perhaps the end), where I indicated that a singularity is something. So your argument is now that although singularities are somethings, they are conceived as the closest to nothing we can have? If that is indeed your argument, it's still wrong.
you took the words right out of my mouth. and my arguement is right! Two things. like I said above, if that's your present argument then it would seem you now don't object to the notion of a singularity being something - a something antecedent to the Universe. Second, I've stated that it's wrong because I don't see how you can consider something that exists, the closest to nothing we have, considering we do indeed have notions of nothing especially with vacuums of different states and observations being the most prevalent examples used to represent a state of nothing |
|
|
|
|
|
simmy (m)
|
What do you mean by the Laws need to be modified, as opposed to them breaking down at the micro-level? Further, doesn't the notion of modifying a law invalidate the purpose of the law? That is, it ceases to be a law at that point'
thats wrong dude1 quick example, Newtons law was modified by Einstein, but we don't exactly consider Newtons gravity laws wrond do we? Also Darwin s laws have been mofified more times than i can count and even though i m convinced Darwin is crap im sure you don't consider his theory wrong. or do you?
I agree that scientists have been searching for a unifying theory for decades. Such a theory would need to be able to explain and unify quantum physics with classical physics, that is, the micro and macro worlds. In other words, there exists a division in how both states operate. And, you'D be wrong to say the two cannot be separated - if they couldn't, quantum physics wouldn't be so damn annoying and cool.
im assuming the fact that scientist assume that a unifying theory has to exist SHOWS that the two worlds are considered a continuation of the same thing.dog, the term UNIFYING theory says it all.
Also, there's a reason the Nigerian guy has been ignored, and it's not because he's Nigerian.
can't remember alluding to that. i just mentioned that as an aside. i have no idea of the veracity or otherwise of his claims.
Yeah, I didn't say any of that
DIRECT QUOTE FROM KAG
So, for the first, the laws of thermodynamics may be found impractical for the micro-world, and for the latter, the emergence of virtual particles would be counterintuitive.
[i][/i]
yes u did kag
Well, it is. Someday some genius or group of geniuses may find a way to fully unite both.
It isnt really. the two worlds just seem to follow two different laws. we all know they follow the same rules, we just don't know the rule yet.
yes. some genius will do that
First, I'm inclined to state that there is a possibility of zero existing. You mentioned something about limited knowledge earlier. It would seem that's applicable here, as we should not conclude dogmatically that something mathematical can't exist based on nothing more than our intuition.
Kag, all things at present point to zero not exisiting. so for now, zero can't exist!
Second, again a false syllogism seems to have crept in: the argument for the unlikelihood of a zero in reality is no indication on the likelihood of a one, as they are slightly different conceptions in reality. What may be considered a perfect one? Would one photon suffice?
No! except you find another photon that is perfectly symmetrical to the first photon
Finally, again, I'm disinclined to believe that a perfect vacuum can't exist. It certainly can. In any case, if we agree that a singuarity is something then we are back to the beginning of the line that started the discussion (and perhaps the end), where I indicated that a singularity is something.
A singularity is a something, in the sense that zero as a concept is a something. a singularity is zero, which is nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
kola oloye (m)
|
You see what i've been saying about theories.THEORIES KILL,
JUST BELIEVE IN THE CREATOR & HAVE PEACE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Method-Man (m)
|
You see what i've been saying about theories.THEORIES KILL,
JUST BELIEVE IN THE CREATOR & HAVE PEACE.
Thank you Oga Kola! |
|
|
|
|
|
joomiegal (f)
|
If there were no God, there would be no atheists. Peeps, and where, pray tell, is our very own "brother Huxley?" (hey, im prophesying into his life  ) wuldve thunk he'D be all ova this thread by now!! |
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
What do you mean by the Laws need to be modified, as opposed to them breaking down at the micro-level? Further, doesn't the notion of modifying a law invalidate the purpose of the law? That is, it ceases to be a law at that point'
thats wrong dude1 quick example, Newtons law was modified by Einstein, but we don't exactly consider Newtons gravity laws wrond do we? Also Darwin s laws have been mofified more times than i can count and even though i m convinced Darwin is crap im sure you don't consider his theory wrong. or do you? First, no, Newton's gravitational law wasn't modified by Einstein, it was superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity; and while Newton's law isn't exactly considered right, it's still a useful tool for explaining and showing the workings of several things - especially to non-physicists and students. Second, what laws of Darwin have been modified? As far as I know, the closest Darwin came to establishing a law would have been indicating that mutations tend to happen with reproduction. No, I haven't seen any reason to think the theory of evolution is wrong. It isn't a law, though. I agree that scientists have been searching for a unifying theory for decades. Such a theory would need to be able to explain and unify quantum physics with classical physics, that is, the micro and macro worlds. In other words, there exists a division in how both states operate. And, you'D be wrong to say the two cannot be separated - if they couldn't, quantum physics wouldn't be so damn annoying and cool.
im assuming the fact that scientist assume that a unifying theory has to exist SHOWS that the two worlds are considered a continuation of the same thing.dog, the term UNIFYING theory says it all. Oh no, the two worlds influence each other, there their relatedness lies; but to be clear, the Also, there's a reason the Nigerian guy has been ignored, and it's not because he's Nigerian.
can't remember alluding to that. i just mentioned that as an aside. i have no idea of the veracity or otherwise of his claims. Oh, I know you weren't implying he gets ignored because he is Nigerian, I just thought I'D mention that. Yeah, I didn't say any of that
DIRECT QUOTE FROM KAG
So, for the first, the laws of thermodynamics may be found impractical for the micro-world, and for the latter, the emergence of virtual particles would be counterintuitive.
[i][/i]
yes u did kag Read it again. I don't see where I even imply that the "thermo laws are impractical for the macro world". Also, it is known how the thermodynamics laws work.
Well, it is. Someday some genius or group of geniuses may find a way to fully unite both.
It isnt really. the two worlds just seem to follow two different laws. we all know they follow the same rules, we just don't know the rule yet.
yes. some genius will do that
I believe this is a major point of contention: do the quantum and classical world follow the same rules? I don't think so, but I'm open to the idea that they might. First, I'm inclined to state that there is a possibility of zero existing. You mentioned something about limited knowledge earlier. It would seem that's applicable here, as we should not conclude dogmatically that something mathematical can't exist based on nothing more than our intuition.
Kag, all things at present point to zero not exisiting. so for now, zero can't exist! Um, it doesn't work that way. For one thing, all things don't point to zero not existing. For another, that you intuitively feel zero can't exist doesn't logically lead to a conclusion that zero can't exist. Second, again a false syllogism seems to have crept in: the argument for the unlikelihood of a zero in reality is no indication on the likelihood of a one, as they are slightly different conceptions in reality. What may be considered a perfect one? Would one photon suffice?
No! except you find another photon that is perfectly symmetrical to the first photon Come again. Why would you need to find another perfectly symmetrical photon to have one perfect photon. That makes no sense. Finally, again, I'm disinclined to believe that a perfect vacuum can't exist. It certainly can. In any case, if we agree that a singuarity is something then we are back to the beginning of the line that started the discussion (and perhaps the end), where I indicated that a singularity is something.
A singularity is a something, in the sense that zero as a concept is a something. a singularity is zero, which is nothing. Again you've missed my points. Ignoring those for a second, though, a singularity isn't just a concept, it's something that exists. So, if it is nothing, then, following your logic, it directly implies that nothing does in fact exist. Coming back to the final points, "Two things. like I said above, if that's your present argument then it would seem you now don't object to the notion of a singularity being something - a something antecedent to the Universe. Second, I've stated that it's wrong because I don't see how you can consider something that exists, the closest to nothing we have, considering we do indeed have notions of nothing especially with vacuums of different states and observations being the most prevalent examples used to represent a state of nothing" |
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
You see what i've been saying about theories.THEORIES KILL,
JUST BELIEVE IN THE CREATOR & HAVE PEACE.
No, ignorance kills. Thank goodness most scientists didn't and don't share your viewpoint. On the other hand, if they had shared your stupidity, no one would have been subjected to your silliness. Win some, lose some. |
|
|
|
|
|
kola oloye (m)
|
@KAG,
FYI am an Architect, an Evangelist as well, i understand what you are talking about.The bible says that God
has used the little things of this world to confuse the wise.Get understanding.God is the Chief scientist,
there are some things that your mind cannot comprehend when it requires GOD's FACTOR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
favcom (m)
|
wouldn't have commented on this thread, but I feel someone needs my contribution. That God exists is nothing to debate about. His existence isn't depended on anybody's logic, thinking and science. I doubt if these postulators would have been here if not through God's divine mercy. Enough said  |
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
@KAG,
FYI am an Architect, an Evangelist as well, i understand what you are talking about.The bible says that God
has used the little things of this world to confuse the wise.Get understanding.God is the Chief scientist,
there are some things that your mind cannot comprehend when it requires GOD's FACTOR.
For some reason I don't think you understood what I wrote. The majority of your post is irrelevant as gods don't exist. wouldn't have commented on this thread, but I feel someone needs my contribution. That God exists is nothing to debate about. Of course it's something about which needs to be debated. That the existence of gods is debated certainly should give one reason to pause for thought, if nothing else. His existence isn't depended on anybody's logic, thinking and science. I doubt if these postulators would have been here if not through God's divine mercy. Enough said Nor is her non-existence dependent on anybody's logic - or lack thereof. It is what it is. The mercy of the gods in favour of our lives strikes me as dubious |
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
@KAG
are you a female?
|
|
|
|
|
|
simmy (m)
|
First, no, Newton's gravitational law wasn't modified by Einstein, it was superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity; and while Newton's law isn't exactly considered right, it's still a useful tool for explaining and showing the workings of several things - especially to non-physicists and students.
Second, what laws of Darwin have been modified? As far as I know, the closest Darwin came to establishing a law would have been indicating that mutations tend to happen with reproduction. No, I haven't seen any reason to think the theory of evolution is wrong. It isn't a law, though.Relativity is a modification of Newton s laws of gravity. Newtons laws only fall apart in more complex situations. Darwin i shall not talk about. Oh no, the two worlds influence each other, there their relatedness lies; but to be clear, theOh, I know you weren't implying he gets ignored because he is Nigerian, I just thought I'D mention that.Ok. Read it again. I don't see where I even imply that the "thermo laws are impractical for the macro world". Also, it is known how the thermodynamics laws work. Ok. maybe im the one reading more than you said I believe this is a major point of contention: do the quantum and classical world follow the same rules? I don't think so, but I'm open to the idea that they might.they have to Kag!! because they are one ant the same thing. a house is made of bricks. the brick is the micro , the house is the macro. all observation suggests they don't follow the same rules which is a contradiction and this is y scientist are spending countless hours trying to find the T.O.E that explains it all. Um, it doesn't work that way. For one thing, all things don't point to zero not existing. For another, that you intuitively feel zero can't exist doesn't logically lead to a conclusion that zero can't exist.Dear Kag, i thought i was done explaining to you how zero only exists in the mind as a concept. Come again. Why would you need to find another perfectly symmetrical photon to have one perfect photon. That makes no sense.because to be perfectly symmetrical you have to not only be of the same size but occupy the same space, which frankly is impossible. Again you've missed my points. Ignoring those for a second, though, a singularity isn't just a concept, it's something that exists. So, if it is nothing, then, following your logic, it directly implies that nothing does in fact exist.well its a bit of a contradiction really. a singularity is something but it is nothing at the same time, just like when we Xtians say God is the Alpha and the Omega Coming back to the final points, "Two things. like I said above, if that's your present argument then it would seem you now don't object to the notion of a singularity being something - a something antecedent to the Universe.
a singularity is a 'something'that has become a 'nothing
Second, I've stated that it's wrong because I don't see how you can consider something that exists, the closest to nothing we have, considering we do indeed have notions of nothing especially with vacuums of different states and observations being the most prevalent examples used to represent a state of nothinga singularity is a phenomenon. its not necessarily a 'physical thing' its a something that has become a nothing, or its a nothing that has the potential of becoming something if there is a slight shift in balance
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
