• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Universe Is Supernatural

...
If the past is infinite, then an infinite amount of time would have to pass before we could arrive at the year 2016.

Since we have indeed arrived at the year 2016, we surely have only passed a finite amount of time before reaching here...

This is a false analogy.

If you imagine time as an infinite number line then there will be a section of that line that holds the period from what we consider to be the start of the Universe, and the present moment.

Withing that section there will be a sub-section that began with the birth of Christ (factual or otherwise) and the present moment. That section is 2016 revolutions of our planet around the Sun. Plus seven months, a few days and a few minutes etc. long.

Time is all relative. We decide what it is relative to.

It doesn't matter where on the infinite number line our section is.

But it would matter if there was anything before the big bang.

Infinities only really matter to mathematicians. They screw up their sums.

But maybe the mathematicians are missing something.

INT21
 
Theory hypothesis call it what you want it remains unchallenged.
 
Xanatic* said:
The problem is what you call your theory is you going "I don't understand this, therefore magic" which there isn't much of a rebuttal for.
Click to expand...

You guys just don't seem to grasp my logic. It's probably prejudice.
 
INT21 said:
...
If the past is infinite, then an infinite amount of time would have to pass before we could arrive at the year 2016.

Since we have indeed arrived at the year 2016, we surely have only passed a finite amount of time before reaching here...

This is a false analogy.

If you imagine time as an infinite number line then there will be a section of that line that holds the period from what we consider to be the start of the Universe, and the present moment.

Withing that section there will be a sub-section that began with the birth of Christ (factual or otherwise) and the present moment. That section is 2016 revolutions of our planet around the Sun. Plus seven months, a few days and a few minutes etc. long.

Time is all relative. We decide what it is relative to.

It doesn't matter where on the infinite number line our section is.

But it would matter if there was anything before the big bang.

Infinities only really matter to mathematicians. They screw up their sums.

But maybe the mathematicians are missing something.

INT21
Click to expand...

No,he's correct. If the past goes back infinitely then you can never reach a point when something happens because it can always have happened earlier. Why are we only in 2016. why haven't we reached the end of time yet?
 
...Why are we only in 2016..

You do know that the full title is 2016 AD

And that the AD means anno domini.

That is why we are only at 2016.

I did mention that time is relevant. 2016 is related to the Christian belief in the birth of Christ.

INT21
 
fudgetusk said:
You guys just don't seem to grasp my logic. It's probably prejudice.
Click to expand...
You might care to explain what type of prejudice is going on there?
I mean, we're all random guys on the Internet, none of us knowing much about the others.
 
Mythopoeika said:
You might care to explain what type of prejudice is going on there?
I mean, we're all random guys on the Internet, none of us knowing much about the others.
Click to expand...
I must admit I'm prejudiced against idiots, but does this apply here? :p
 
Fudgetusk,

...You guys just don't seem to grasp my logic. It's probably prejudice...

I'm not quite sure how the description 'prejudice' comes into play here. Or the use of the derogatory term 'idiots'.

Perhaps you can explain in some more detail why you are using these words when all we are doing is having different views on the subject of infinity; and the reason for using the date 2016.

INT21
 
I've been reading this thread so far, and it all seems a case of one person postulating a theory that turns on a word. One word. So, here is my uneducated ideas on this subject.

We don't know what was before the mostly accepted idea of the big bang. We don't have, collectively, the understanding or awareness, therefore we postulate and theorise about it - the bottom line is we don't know.

There are certain accepted ideas about the coming into existence of the Universe/multiverse - but these are still only theories.

Trying to prove my idea is better than your idea is unproductive, when we don't really know, and is the same as saying my god is better than yours, and to me indicates an unfortunate character flaw

Magical as a descriptor, for an act that we have very little understanding, is due to our technology just not being up to it.

My personal take on it all is akin to William Shakespeares lines of;

O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

and in the meantime, the moon is in an earthy sign, so I'm going to plant some lovely Kipfler seed spuds for this coming antipodean autumn harvest.

'Ooroo.
 
Mungoman11,

Soon be time to see how my 'taters have done this year. I think they are 'desiree'.

Here is something else to consider with this question of how big is the universe.

If light reaches us from a star that is reckoned to be right at the edge of the observable Universe, It follows that light (photons) from this star have also traveled the same distance in the opposite direction. I.e away from the other side of the star. So it would seem that the distance at least must be available for the light to travel. So the distance to the edge of the Universe, if there is one, must be at least twice the distance from us to the furthest observable star.

Would you all agree ?

INT21

p.s. You don't have to agree; it's not compulsory. Just offer an alternative theory.
 
That doesn't follow. The light going the opposite direction could go a few meters and hit a brick wall.
 
Xanatic* said:
That doesn't follow. The light going the opposite direction could go a few meters and hit a brick wall.
Click to expand...

So, the brick wall is "supernatural"?

First of all, "supernatural" is not a real category of anything in creation. If something happens in our experience, then it is a natural occurrence. How can you experience anything that does not happen in nature? You can't. That is where we live, breathe and think. Nature is also the source of all our experiences.

Actually, "supernatural" is little more than a semantic cutout for things that do not comfortably fit into our rational materialist expectations. Rational materialism tells us that anything we can see, touch, taste or sense with our physical senses or sensitive scientific instruments is "real". That also happens to be the trope that science takes as its gospel. Anything that falls outside those parameters is "not real". That is the category apprehended by the term supernatural. In that category we have things like ghosts, "hallucinations" UFOs and psychic experiences.

But those things continue to happen regardless of our chosen subjective epistemologies. Rational materialism did not make those things go away or "prove" them wrong, it simply supplied us with an intellectual excuse to negate such ideas. That is how we get denial as an accepted scientistic intellectual paradigm. That is also how we get faux pseudo-skeptics that specialize in denial rather than open minded questioning - the actual object of true skepticism.

But denial is not scientific and the "supernatural" is not "not real". This is why I submit that the supernatural is a false category. It is an intellectual exclusion zone, so does not respond to what is "actual" in the universe but only responds to what we are able to comprehend with the very limited mail-slot belief system (BS) of rational materialism.

So, I would submit: those things deemed "supernatural" are natural and do not warrant a separate exclusive category. They are immaterial which, in this context, is not something that has no substance or value, but something that cannot be comprehended as material. That may be a semantic distinction, but if we are honest about our accepted belief systems, the "supernatural" is a reality we cannot escape with a simple semantically convenient denial.

So, my take on the original premise of this thread is that dubbing the universe as "supernatural" is a position that is semantically meaningless. If by "supernatural" you mean that the universe has "immaterial" elements, then I am completely on board with that. But I would submit that you should come up with a more cogent term for that....

As for infinity: if we accept your "brick wall" as the "end" of the universe, then we can always expand the universe by asking: "what is on the other side of that wall?" Because of this, I would submit that infinity is intellectually tenable. It is the idea of the universe as "finite" that is intellectually untenable - because you can always expand it with another question - such as INT21's question above. Infinity rules!

Just sayin'.......
 
Last edited:
The brick wall was an example, to say that INT21 is wrong about his assumption. Hawking once mentioned that asking what was before the Big Bang might be like asking what is south of the south pole. He could well be right.
 
Xanatic* said:
The brick wall was an example, to say that INT21 is wrong about his assumption. Hawking once mentioned that asking what was before the Big Bang might be like asking what is south of the south pole. He could well be right.
Click to expand...
Quite so!

And since the question of light travel time from distant stars has been raised, this is the time revisit Olbers' Paradox:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

"...is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a dynamic universe, such as the Big Bang model. If the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This contradicts the observed darkness of the night.[1]"

Note that this is not an argument about Infinity as such, but an argument for an expanding universe.
 
rynner2 said:
Note that this is not an argument about Infinity as such, but an argument for an expanding universe.
Click to expand...
If the Universe carries on expanding forever, does that create 'infinity'?
 
I favour the idea of the universe as a 4-dimensional sphere. A normal sphere like the Earth has a finite surface area but no boundary. Any direction you go in, you end up where you started and you don't fall of the edge. The universe might be the same, finite volume but no edges. You fly your rocket in a straight line long enough and you end up where you started.
 
Xanatic* said:
I favour the idea of the universe as a 4-dimensional sphere. A normal sphere like the Earth has a finite surface area but no boundary. Any direction you go in, you end up where you started and you don't fall of the edge. The universe might be the same, finite volume but no edges. You fly your rocket in a straight line long enough and you end up where you started.
Click to expand...
That's the same line of reasoning the flat earthers are using.
 
Xanatic* said:
I think you lost me there.
Click to expand...
Sorry...I have heard some flat earthers using an explanation for people flying around the planet. They reckon that when you get to the edge, you somehow miraculously pop out somewhere else from the edge of the same flat surface.
 
Nothing miraculous about it. It's the same thing for an ant crawling around on an orange.
 
There's a difference between the Earth and the Universe.
We move about on the surface of the Earth. No 'edges'.
We move about within the surface of the Universe. 'Edges'.
 
It's an analogy. I don't have any 4-dimensional spheres to use as an example. It is true for stickmen walking on circles, ants walking on oranges and likely us in a hypersphere or what you want to call it.
 
You will only get back to your starting point on a sphere if you are walking around the surface.

If you start from the perceived centre and head out on a straight line towards the surface you will not get back to the beginning. Merely to the surface.

If the Universe is finite then it must be 'somewhere'. The somewhere that contains the Universe.

The idea of asking what is South of South is really nonsensical, even if Hawking said it. He would have meant that from the South Pole all directions are north
He would not have been talking about the vertical axis (the Z axis).

INT21.
 
Bonehead,

..But denial is not scientific and the "supernatural" is not "not real". This is why I submit that the supernatural is a false category. It is an intellectual exclusion zone, so does not respond to what is "actual" in the universe but only responds to what we are able to comprehend with the very limited mail-slot belief system (BS) of rational materialism.

I do agree that the term 'supernatural' and also 'paranormal' are really just labels. But we do have to give labels to things or we would have no mechanism for discussing them.

Paranormal, meaning as it does, parallel normality, is probably the better word to use. This at least allows for the (apparent) fact that strange stuff does seem to happen.

Now, If we are to accept that there is a strange thing happening then it means that it is interacting with at least one of our senses. Or we would not be able to perceive it and thus would have no awareness of it.

It would seem to follow from this that there has to be a link between these 'paranormal' occurrences and the thing we call normality. I mean, if we see something then it has to have acted upon the light sensitive ares of our eyes and been transmitted to out brains for evaluation.

Unless, of course, it goes straight to our brain by passing our visual circuitry.

Or maybe it is working upon the mind directly, which may be a different thing altogether.

What say you ?

INT21
 
Hawking's point was that it is nonsensical. That we can ask the question doesn't mean there is an answer to it. The Big Bang might have been the beginning of time itself so there was no before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top