₦airaland Forum

@ jantawateva

u ve got some talent dude, get published, u also have a lot of spare time dont u? out of a job? i could hire u, i need a cook.

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 dont 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 dont exist. if perfect situations dont 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
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,

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
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.

@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 (ur 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.

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.

How so?
how so? uniformity is relative. absolute uniformity is absolute!

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)


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.

the only reason y i d repaint my car was if i felt it was getting ugly.

fotodaddy
thts wrong logic, washing ur car ia analogous to having a bath. making up is like painting the car everysingle day.

@kag
read ur post and the link u provided. behind all the long winded statements is a simple fact, a singularity is that point where all laws break down and cease to function, everything becomes everything, in very simplistic evryday language thats what a singularity is!

Isn't that a tautology? Can something that is uniform be any more absolutely uniform?

no its not tautology. absolute uniformity is very different from uniformity.


That's wrong. Zero does exist in mathematics. Nothing can exist philosophically (for one thing, the idea of "existence preceding essence" would be impossible without some form of nothingness). Even by your criterion, nothing can exist, because it can be contrasted with the somethings we can already perceive

you re right. just one small problem. that im trying to grapple with the concept of nothiness proves that something exists. so philosophy assumes its unnecesary to try n work the logic in your direction.


T[b]hat's all wrong. For what it's worth, a good example of nothingness is to be found in the make-up of an atom. Within an atom there is a great deal of nothing[/b]

what are you? old school? , there s so much in a n atom. protons neutrons , and their are particles that have been discovered that exist in sub atomic particles.

you guys just dont get the point.
it doesnt matter whether Chris oyakhilome s miracles are real or not! there s no rational way i can verify or otherwise these miracles, so why bother? either way it doesnt affect my faith. many pentecostal pastors both in nigeria and elswhere have been exposed as charlatans and if ure objective u ll agree its baby xtians that need miracles to ginger themselves up.get off the milk and start eating solids.
if i was a CE member i d keep silent if any 1 criticised my church or pastor instead of ranting on how they should be asking for forgiveness

@donnie
the tone of ur voice depicts exactly what im talking about,

people should repent of their sins and stop criticising CE and pastor Xris? What is he God, that he cant be criticised? i have no opinion about him (good or bad) cos i dont know him, but when people like u come and get all offended by any criticism of ur pastor and church , it just smacks of 'fanaticism' a little.
just my ten cents.

@kag
uniformity is not just one of the properties of a singularity. Absolute uniformity is!

A singularity be it gravitational or other is a phenomenom where something cancels out something perfectly, resulting in nothing.
zero doesnt really exist in mathematics, its just a concept, an abstract, philosophically, its impossible for nothing to exist because there has to be something to contrast the nothing against.
Singularity is the closest physics can get to describe mathematically the concept of nothingess since it is impossible to represent nothing mathematically. So if a singularity is something it is only because our scientists are ill equipped to aptly describe the concept of nothing.
i hope that made sense!

KAG:
Not quite. A singularity is something. Its qualities may be difficult to decipher at this point, but it isn't nothing.

No, if there were no people that claimed gods exist, there would be no [need for] atheists.

a singularity as i understand it in simplistic terms is absolute symmetry,  which is identical with nothingness,  what is nothing? nothing is nothing because for something to be nothing it has to be contrasted with something, however when you have absloute symettry, everything becomes everything which makes everything nothing.hope that made sense
thats why entropy increases in the universe as differentiation grows (or more matter) is being created (not necessarily by a creator).
by extrapolation if entropy begins to decrease it reaches a stage where everything becomes symetrical (undistinguishable) and that is what is referred to as a singularity,  which is just a euphemism (or more accurately a big word scientists use to confuse us) for NOTHING!

if u really think of it from a philosophical point of view nothing really cannot exist,

quote from donnie
I was so[b] emotional [/b] on hearing this testiomony because i remember a friend of mine years ago refer to him as 'no more than a vegetable'; yet he owns some of the largest businesses in Nigeria, some of which are run by the his, blablabla

this is exactly what is wrong with modern day xtians. If we as observers need miracles to reinforce our faith then i think something is wrong. I noticed the way you used the word emotional. Emotions cloud judgement and you should always try to leave your emotions at home a smuch as possible when you go to church

@kag
funny enough i agreed with most of your answers to original poster. sometimes xtians go to ridiculus lenghts in tryng to prove Gods existence,  most of what he said was superfuous crap (sorry)
but dear kag
what does 'singularity expanded to become the universe mean?
what is singularity if its nothing??
what u said in esssence is nothing expanded to become the universe,  which is what the poster was saying anyways,

huxley:
did any real miracles happen today?

what kind of question is that?
to your original post, maybe God (who is the originator) of all miracles is not interested in solving these problems

sex

i ve been observing silently for some time now
the only point i want to make is that i am of the opinion that consciousness is a totally subjective phenomena,

this thread isnt logical

the two dudes (may their souls rest in peace, they both fought to the death) in the movie : Kung fu master with the 72 magic"!

the comparison doesnt work, no sane dude will go out in public clad only in boxers yet u find females in public (sometimes even in church in their own version of , personally, i d only entertain my chic in my boxers but sometimes sh.t happens.

by the way ive delibrately ignored ur question. its another topic for another thread and im not in the mood 4 tht now

Like i said, you think you know?
you have no idea,

@morpheus
im forced to agree with you. many pastors are either ignorant or careless. however, i believe its your duty to know what you believe. you shouldnt rely on anyoneelse.

@kag
alright already, if you dont get my point drop it and go n do other stuff ok?

@ kag
u just dont get it do u?
for sm1 who s so smart i thot it was obvious

i ve banned u 4 not following the rules

quite silly, in fact a lil childish

OMG!!!
here come the rationalists in all their 'look at me im rational'glory. sure the noah story doesnt sound rational! but its just stupid to criticse a book that tells such a story when just a few pages later, the same book tells us of unspeakable 'miracles'!!!
splitting of the red sea
variuos egyptian plagues
fire falling from heaven and destroying two cities
a lady turnied to salt!!!!

Now when a book unblinkingly tells you stories such as these, dont you think your trying to rationalise the flood story is the height of stupidity??

the bible is not a rational book!! all atheists and agnostics and doubters and rationalists should learn once and for all. its a religious book. thats why some things are called miracles or supernatural.

Man! a book tells me someone came from heaven died for me and woke up in three days so that i would not go to a place where i would be totured forever and you re rationalising a story the same book tells about a flood
the bible talks about out of the world things, u either believe it or you dont! if the bible was rational i wouldnt have to believe what it says! u dont need to believe logic, but u have to believe something that defies logic!