The Theory of Relative Motion and Natural Purpose

[New Age United]

When we put all three of these things together, what we get is the concept known as eternal inflation. The big idea is that what we call “our Universe” is just one place — which we can only see a part of — where we’ve successfully slid down the hill. But the vast majority of the “true” Universe, outside of our little pocket, is still inflating, and still expanding exponentially!

Based on what we currently think about inflation, this means that the Universe is at least 10^(10^30) times the size of our observable Universe! And good luck living long enough to even write that number down. Thanks to Rob Knop for making me think about this, and isn’t that a mind-blowing thing to think about? All that we know, see, and observe is just one tiny region that slid down that hill fast enough to end inflation, but most of it just keeps on inflating forever and ever. Aren’t we the lucky ones?!

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/10/27/how-big-is-the-unobservable-un/

~PEACE~

It is possible that space - time is infinite in terms of endless and the multiverse seems probable and intuitive, it is completely rational.

 

[New Age United]

Ok so now I will pose a question, correct me if I'm wrong. According to my understanding it is the mathematical definition of infinity that is required to accelerate a particle of mass past the speed of light. Is it not possible that a collapsing star could create an infinite amount of energy and accelerate mass past the speed of light?

 

[tyler.durden]

Ok so now I will pose a question, correct me if I'm wrong. According to my understanding it is the mathematical definition of infinity that is required to accelerate a particle of mass past the speed of light. Is it not possible that a collapsing star could create an infinite amount of energy and accelerate mass past the speed of light?

No, it is not possible. A collapsing star, or any other cosmic event, could never create an infinite amount of energy. As far as we know, infinity is a concept with no counterpart in objective reality...

 

[New Age United]

No, it is not possible. A collapsing star, or any other cosmic event, could never create an infinite amount of energy. As far as we know, infinity is a concept with no counterpart in objective reality...

Excuse me Mr Durden, I am honestly trying to learn here. Isn't this an argument from ignorance, just because it is not a mathematically logical number does not mean that infinite numbers do not exist, there can be larger and smaller infinities, am I wrong. Also can you please explain what you mean by infinity having no counterpart in objective reality.

 

[tyler.durden]

Excuse me Mr Durden, I am honestly trying to learn here. Isn't this an argument from ignorance, just because it is not a mathematically logical number does not mean that infinite numbers do not exist, there can be larger and smaller infinities, am I wrong. Also can you please explain what you mean by infinity having no counterpart in objective reality.

I see that you are learning. Infinities in math are purely conceptual, and they can be useful in that regard. Not so in physics. From wiki's infinity page -

In physics, approximations of real numbers are used for continuous measurements and natural numbers are used for discrete measurements (i.e. counting). It is therefore assumed by physicists that no measurable quantity could have an infinite value,[citation needed] for instance by taking an infinite value in an extended real number system, or by requiring the counting of an infinite number of events. It is, for example, presumed impossible for any type of body to have infinite mass or infinite energy.

As far as we know in reality, everything is finite. Physicists have estimated even the number of particles in the known universe, and while the number is mind-bendingly huge (like a googleplex) it certainly is not infinite...

 

[New Age United]

8. This right here is a comet. We just landed a probe on one of those bad boys. Here’s what one looks like compared with Los Angeles:

If you were to ignore metaphysics and use strict rationality, this should make you feel like a tiny germ crawling on a rock, and that rock is but a pebble cast into the sea.

I believe that by expressing natural purpose we can find reason and logic in the metaphysical to explain how we are more significant than physics tells us we are, we may very well be the means of all creation, imagine, such a massive cosmos came together so that you could be alive. Have you ever tried to imagine absolutely nothing, not even space, it is impossible, because as you try you are still aware, it is as if all of this had to be, both the experience and the experiencer, It is only when you lose consciousness that absolutely nothing is achieved and everything physical and metaphysical loses its significance, to realize that nothing is important, that is to find peace and understanding.

 

[New Age United]

I know that a lot of people reject metaphysics all together, you look at truth as something solid and tangible, but there are subjective truths, remember that you are the subject after all, when contemplating metaphysics you must find what is true to you, you must trust your own logic and intuition.

 

[New Age United]

I guess I just don't understand how people can so easily reject metaphysics when it is such an integral part of human experience, it is one half of the whole of understanding, physical and metaphysical, objective and subjective, form and formless. I guess it has a stigma of supernatural attached to it and that is not true metaphysics.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

 

[tyler.durden]

If you were to ignore metaphysics and use strict rationality, this should make you feel like a tiny germ crawling on a rock, and that rock is but a pebble cast into the sea.

I believe that by expressing natural purpose we can find reason and logic in the metaphysical to explain how we are more significant than physics tells us we are, we may very well be the means of all creation, imagine, such a massive cosmos came together so that you could be alive. Have you ever tried to imagine absolutely nothing, not even space, it is impossible, because as you try you are still aware, it is as if all of this had to be, both the experience and the experiencer, It is only when you lose consciousness that absolutely nothing is achieved and everything physical and metaphysical loses its significance, to realize that nothing is important, that is to find peace and understanding.

Your thinking process is full of contradictions. I can't imagine anything more immature and egocentric than holding the notion that this entire cosmos has a purpose, and that purpose has to do with one specific primate species on one tiny planet in a relatively average galaxy in a nondescript area of the universe. Really? That makes sense to you? The universe was cruising along just fine for 10 billion years or so before this planet was even formed, another couple of billion while this planet serendipitously forms an atmosphere complete with liquid water, life begins and evolves into millions of diverse species and creatures that are beautifully adapted to their environment. This all meant little to nothing until about 200k years ago, we show up and now Natural Purpose can begin? This seems like a child's mentality. The cosmos did its thing well before we were here, and it will continue to do so with or without human existence.

In the next sentence you say that nothing is important (it would seem like your Natural Purpose would be important if it existed, but whatever). This seems much closer to what reality shows us. Just because the universe by all indications doesn't assign a purpose to humanity doesn't mean that we can't choose one for ourselves. Which seems to be what we have always done. Human affairs including art, music, love, science, etc., doesn't have to mean anything to the universe in order for them to be important to us. Our importance seems subjective, not objective. I find it liberating, really; I was not born burdened with a pre-ordained purpose, so I'm free to choose my own...

 

[New Age United]

The truth and rational explanation for phenomena already exists, why bring your subjective intuition into it? What is that supposed to accomplish?

How are we supposed to find the truth and understanding without first destroying what we intuitively feel is true, because as we know it is so often wrong. We have to accept truth(objective) over belief (subjective)

 

[New Age United]

Your thinking process is full of contradictions. I can't imagine anything more immature and egocentric than holding the notion that this entire cosmos has a purpose, and that purpose has to do with one specific primate species on one tiny planet in a relatively average galaxy in a nondescript area of the universe. Really? That makes sense to you? The universe was cruising along just fine for 10 billion years or so before this planet was even formed, another couple of billion while this planet serendipitously forms an atmosphere complete with liquid water, life begins and evolves into millions of diverse species and creatures that are beautifully adapted to their environment. This all meant little to nothing until about 200k years ago, we show up and now Natural Purpose can begin? This seems like a child's mentality. The cosmos did its thing well before we were here, and it will continue to do so with or without human existence.

In the next sentence you say that nothing is important (it would seem like your Natural Purpose would be important if it existed, but whatever). This seems much closer to what reality shows us. Just because the universe by all indications doesn't assign a purpose to humanity doesn't mean that we can't choose one for ourselves. Which seems to be what we have always done. Human affairs including art, music, love, science, etc., doesn't have to mean anything to the universe in order for them to be important to us. Our importance seems subjective, not objective. I find it liberating, really; I was not born burdened with a pre-ordained purpose, so I'm free to choose my own...

Very good expression at the end. I believe everything physical has a natural purpose, I think I have to come to terms with the fact that no not everything happens for a reason.

 

[New Age United]

Btw you argue from incredulity quite frequently Mr Durden.

 

[New Age United]

Your thinking process is full of contradictions. I can't imagine anything more immature and egocentric than holding the notion that this entire cosmos has a purpose, and that purpose has to do with one specific primate species on one tiny planet in a relatively average galaxy in a nondescript area of the universe. Really? That makes sense to you? The universe was cruising along just fine for 10 billion years or so before this planet was even formed, another couple of billion while this planet serendipitously forms an atmosphere complete with liquid water, life begins and evolves into millions of diverse species and creatures that are beautifully adapted to their environment. This all meant little to nothing until about 200k years ago, we show up and now Natural Purpose can begin? This seems like a child's mentality. The cosmos did its thing well before we were here, and it will continue to do so with or without human existence.

In the next sentence you say that nothing is important (it would seem like your Natural Purpose would be important if it existed, but whatever). This seems much closer to what reality shows us. Just because the universe by all indications doesn't assign a purpose to humanity doesn't mean that we can't choose one for ourselves. Which seems to be what we have always done. Human affairs including art, music, love, science, etc., doesn't have to mean anything to the universe in order for them to be important to us. Our importance seems subjective, not objective. I find it liberating, really; I was not born burdened with a pre-ordained purpose, so I'm free to choose my own...

Argument from incredulity and ignorance, perhaps space - time has to be so vast in order for the the correct proportions for life to form, and therefore it could make sense, but I do get your point.

 

[reddan1981]

reality is that of the observer, both of you are correct in your interpretation.

 

[tyler.durden]

I guess I just don't understand how people can so easily reject metaphysics when it is such an integral part of human experience, it is one half of the whole of understanding, physical and metaphysical, objective and subjective, form and formless. I guess it has a stigma of supernatural attached to it and that is not true metaphysics.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

I don't think most people consciously reject metaphysics, it is just that speaking about the way things are in objective reality is a completely different subject than how we experience those things subjectively. The trouble and confusion seeps in when we try to insert our subjectivity into an objective process like the scientific method. If one wants to talk about metaphysics, cool. If one wants to speak about science and objective reality, also cool. Some people are more interested in the inner workings of the human experience, and some are more interested on how the cosmos around them works...

 

[tyler.durden]

How are we supposed to find the truth and understanding without first destroying what we intuitively feel is true, because as we know it is so often wrong. We have to accept truth(objective) over belief (subjective)

That is what the scientific method is all about, suppressing our bias and intuition to objectively observe nature and draw logical conclusions. Preferably we form our beliefs based on these findings, rather than what we are subjectively drawn to...

 

[tyler.durden]

Btw you argue from incredulity quite frequently Mr Durden.

This will be a good exercise: you show us where you think that happens and we'll examine those instances together...

 

[tyler.durden]

reality is that of the observer, both of you are correct in your interpretation.

There exists an objective reality that is independent from the human experience, and subjective "realities" that exist within each of us. When speaking scientifically, we are usually speaking of objective reality...

 

[reddan1981]

yes reality might exist outside our own perspectives but to record them, we use human perception. True reality is outside our scope of understanding so no-one could confidently argue one potential over another, or again one could but it would be unfounded.

 

[New Age United]

yes reality might exist outside our own perspectives but to record them, we use human perception. True reality is outside our scope of understanding so no-one could confidently argue one potential over another, or again one could but it would be unfounded.

Yes all measurement, all science, is a matter of subjective perception, but it is grounded in logic, I believe that some aspects of objective reality are beyond the scope of our finite minds but the finite is observable and understandable.

I do get your point, even though we have logic to base our understanding, and as practical as it may be, it is still subjective, to attain a realization of ultimate reality we must snap out of logic all together, we must stop thinking and become directly aware of Space, the Space in the Present Moment, we must be directly aware of the universe as it truly exists, and not as our minds perceive it.