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

The Universe Is Supernatural

fudgetusk said:
None. Just like you and everyone else here. So let's not get arrogant.
Click to expand...
Ok, not sure how you might know that.

So if some of the contributors to this thread had for example degrees in physics would you consider they carry more weight? Or less?
 
Coal said:
Ok, not sure how you might know that.

So if some of the contributors to this thread had for example degrees in physics would you consider they carry more weight? Or less?
Click to expand...

Nope. I would value their level of logical thinking most. You don't have to be qualified otherwise I wouldn't have started this thread.

And still nobody has tackled my OP. I guess it's stumped people.
 
I just developed a headache reading this thread......o_O
...at any rate I like the idea that 'something' always existed...and to me it's not about logic or illogic which are finite human terms. Who said that the Universe has to be logical? Because we can't imagine an infinite regression to where the Universe or some form of it has always been here doesn't mean it's not the case.
And if one postulates a 'supernatural' origin then one has to explain how that came to be and where the supernatural entity came from ...assuming one postulates a 'God' or something similar.
 
If there is not some other 'supernatural' aspect to all this. And assuming everyone agrees that if you keep on reducing everything in size you get down into the realm of quarks....

what tells the subatomic particles what to do ?

INT21
 
INT21 said:
If there is not some other 'supernatural' aspect to all this. And assuming everyone agrees that if you keep on reducing everything in size you get down into the realm of quarks....

what tells the subatomic particles what to do ?

INT21
Click to expand...
Presumably 'God' tells them what to do or maybe the Universe itself is conscious ...?
:cooll:
 
Which raises the question ' where does God reside ?'.

Being an atheist that is a question that has no validity. But that doesn't detract from the fact that these sub atomic particles somehow know what to become.

INT21
 
dr wu said:
I just developed a headache reading this thread......o_O
...at any rate I like the idea that 'something' always existed...and to me it's not about logic or illogic which are finite human terms. Who said that the Universe has to be logical? Because we can't imagine an infinite regression to where the Universe or some form of it has always been here doesn't mean it's not the case.
And if one postulates a 'supernatural' origin then one has to explain how that came to be and where the supernatural entity came from ...assuming one postulates a 'God' or something similar.
Click to expand...

Kaku, a top notch quantum physicist, says that there is no such thing as infinity in the real world, so that crushes your idea. And how you think something finite could be infinite is beyond me. LIke I said you've been damaged by scientists grasping for a logical solution to something that has no logical solution.
 
drbates said:
Actually - we have a member whos son works at CERN. Noone else has put their cards on the table.

Being qualified helps, else how can you even be sure that what you believe makes any kind of sense, never mind likely?

I can come up with theories and speculations all day, but not only can I not do the maths to prove them I don't even know what sort of maths I'd need to do, so they can be discounted....
Click to expand...

Not true. The scientists give us quotes so that we can figure things out. Niels Bohr says that reality is made up of things that cannot be regarded as real. If particles are not real then what are they? Magic seems the logical conclusion.
 
"The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
 
fudgetusk said:
Kaku, a top notch quantum physicist, says that there is no such thing as infinity in the real world, so that crushes your idea. And how you think something finite could be infinite is beyond me. LIke I said you've been damaged by scientists grasping for a logical solution to something that has no logical solution.
Click to expand...
Just because Kaku said something doesn't make it the truth...it's an opinion only....and you must have misread my post because I said logic is not the only issue here...and that the Universe doesn't have to be logical because we want it to be so. The finite being infinite comment refers to what...?
 
Xanatic* said:
"The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
Click to expand...

There ya go.....best answer yet.


As RAWilson once opined, " If you think you know what's going on then you are probably full of shit."
 
..The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson...

Neither are the Pyramids of Egypt or anything else.

It doesn't need to make sense. But if people stop trying to make sense of these things then we may as well all pack up and turn to stamp collecting.

One could say that ufos don't need to make sense. They either exist or they don't. So why is everyone here ?

INT21
 
dr wu said:
Just because Kaku said something doesn't make it the truth...it's an opinion only....and you must have misread my post because I said logic is not the only issue here...and that the Universe doesn't have to be logical because we want it to be so. The finite being infinite comment refers to what...?
Click to expand...

Yeah but who do I listen to? some guy on a forum or a quantum physicist? Obviously the latter. A universe(at least the one we know) is finite. Finite things can be counted/measured. To say there are measurable things existing through the past INFINITELY is impossible. Because finite things can be counted it defies logic to suggest there is an uncountable number of them. Infinity is not a number, remember. You are trying to suggest that a finite thing has existed for an uncountable number of years.

Nonsense. The sort of nonsense that comes from damaged minds.
 
fudgetusk said:
Yeah but who do I listen to? some guy on a forum or a quantum physicist? Obviously the latter. A universe(at least the one we know) is finite. Finite things can be counted/measured. To say there are measurable things existing through the past INFINITELY is impossible. Because finite things can be counted it defies logic to suggest there is an uncountable number of them. Infinity is not a number, remember. You are trying to suggest that a finite thing has existed for an uncountable number of years.

Nonsense. The sort of nonsense that comes from damaged minds.
Click to expand...

And who am I to argue with some other damaged mind from a forum...?
:rofl:
 
Fudgetusk,

You say the Universe is finite.

Yet astronomers keep on discovering galaxies that are further out than they have previously been able to see.

And it is accepted that no one knows where the edge of the Universe is. Assuming it is finite, it must have an ending; an edge. But we can't see it. So how you you know it is there?

Maybe the physicists you are reading are not up to speed on modern developments.

Or do you have another explanation ?

INT21
 
That you can't make sense of it doesn't make it magic. Only you are claiming that.
 
dr wu said:
And who am I to argue with some other damaged mind from a forum...?
:rofl:
Click to expand...
I am not damaged by scientists. I come to this issue with a fresh and open mind. I evaluate the evidence from that viewpoint.
 
INT21 said:
Fudgetusk,

You say the Universe is finite.

Yet astronomers keep on discovering galaxies that are further out than they have previously been able to see.

And it is accepted that no one knows where the edge of the Universe is. Assuming it is finite, it must have an ending; an edge. But we can't see it. So how you you know it is there?

Maybe the physicists you are reading are not up to speed on modern developments.

Or do you have another explanation ?

INT21
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the universe goes on for ever? Because we keep finding new galaxies? Come back in forty years and say that. We'll have a clearer view then. People like Kaku have logic on their side.

>>
Maybe the physicists you are reading are not up to speed on modern developments.

What modern developments? Nothing of much interest has happened in thirty years or more. To suggest that Kaku is not in the know is you grasping to maintain your sense of logic when faced with an illogical universe.

And I'm still waiting for someone to actually counter my OP. No on has so far. I wonder why. :)
 
Xanatic* said:
That you can't make sense of it doesn't make it magic. Only you are claiming that.
Click to expand...

Scientists would not dare use the m word. Their credibility would diminish along with their funding. They are paid to find a logical answer to an illogical puzzle. They are failing but rely on bunkum to cover that up. You guys fall for it.
 
"The Universe is Supernatural"

Compared to what? A natural universe?

But if there's more than one, it's not a Universe at all, it's part of a multiverse...

:p
 
...Are you suggesting the universe goes on for ever? Because we keep finding new galaxies? Come back in forty years and say that. We'll have a clearer view then. People like Kaku have logic on their side...

I'll be dead in forty years, so I'd like to hear your explanations in a rather shorter time frame; if you don't object.

I have followed Professor Michio Kaku for a long time. And he does have his points.

However, I wanted to know from you how you can say the universe is finite when we do not know where the edge if it is, or even if it has one.

It is equivalent to stating the area of a circle when you do not know the radius.

You quoted Kaku's idea bout 'nothing' back at the beginning. And you use him to beat others about the head because he is a physicist and we here aren't. However you don't need to be a world renouned scientist to be able to think logically.

And ALL the physicists I have read share one belief. Things that happen at the quantum level are totally illogical. No one understands them. We just know how to use some of the properties.

But then you wrote, at the end of your opening post....

..I put it to you that the universe came into being from absolute nothing but we should see this as a supernatural act...

Perhaps you can explain where this conclusion comes from, what is this 'supernatural' realm. Where is it ?

Or are you invoking a God ?

If so, where does (did) that God reside ?

INT21
 
INT21 said:
...Are you suggesting the universe goes on for ever? Because we keep finding new galaxies? Come back in forty years and say that. We'll have a clearer view then. People like Kaku have logic on their side...

I'll be dead in forty years, so I'd like to hear your explanations in a rather shorter time frame; if you don't object.

I have followed Professor Michio Kaku for a long time. And he does have his points.

However, I wanted to know from you how you can say the universe is finite when we do not know where the edge if it is, or even if it has one.

It is equivalent to stating the area of a circle when you do not know the radius.

You quoted Kaku's idea bout 'nothing' back at the beginning. And you use him to beat others about the head because he is a physicist and we here aren't. However you don't need to be a world renouned scientist to be able to think logically.

And ALL the physicists I have read share one belief. Things that happen at the quantum level are totally illogical. No one understands them. We just know how to use some of the properties.

But then you wrote, at the end of your opening post....

..I put it to you that the universe came into being from absolute nothing but we should see this as a supernatural act...

Perhaps you can explain where this conclusion comes from, what is this 'supernatural' realm. Where is it ?

Or are you invoking a God ?

If so, where does (did) that God reside ?

INT21
Click to expand...

I'm not invoking a God. I'm just saying if something isn't logical then it can be described as magical. Use your own word if it makes you happy. Call it illogical if you wish. I don't claim to know how these acts of magic came about.

If the universe is infinite then how big would the singularity have been? It would have been infinite too. So how could it have exploded? There was no room for an explosion. The singularity would have occupied all of infinite space, which is impossible anyway. Some of you don't seem to grasp the implications of infinity. It renders any theory as bs.
 
Fudgetusk,

Some time back there was an Horizon (I think) program called 'everything we know about the Universe is wrong'.

It was quite interesting.

But maybe that is the real problem. That we have taken a line of mathematical speculation and run too far with it.

Prof Kaku is well known, when talking about nothing, as in 'everything came from nothing' for stating that 'it all depends upon how you define 'nothing''.

Maybe with infinity it all depends upon how you define it.

...If the universe is infinite then how big would the singularity have been? It would have been infinite too. So how could it have exploded? There was no room for an explosion...

This points to something more fundamental.

I.e. What was there before the universe ?

As you point out, there has to be somewhere for the Big Bang to bang in.

That would seem to imply a much bigger 'some place else' where the Universe was born. And that also suggests there may be other universes existing in the same 'some place else'.

So the funderment that gave birth to the Universe we know (all the background wiggly quantum bits that apparently exist and do not exist at the same time) may indeed be infinite in the accepted way. This will not in any way prevent our universe being born.

...The singularity would have occupied all of infinite space, which is impossible anyway...

Why so ? It was supposedly an 'infinitely' small point. Why should it not happen in an infinitely large space ?

We just don't know that anyway. Apparently the maths collapse when you get down to that level; most convenient.

This brings us to the question 'where is the centre of the universe?'.

Some say there isn't one. yet logic says that an explosion, particularly one of the Big Bang kind, must have had a point of origin. That would be the centre.
If there was no centre then the idea of a singularity is out the window. Using that model the Universe expanded from a point.

Anyway. That's just my point of view.

As for the word 'magical', I don't like it because it is redolent of magic tricks. and we all know that magic trick are really just slight of hand etc. The observer is just being fooled.
If something is not explainable by logic, then it is simply illogical or unknown. And unknown really means unknown at the moment.

INT21
 
INT21 said:
Fudgetusk,

Some time back there was an Horizon (I think) program called 'everything we know about the Universe is wrong'.

It was quite interesting.

But maybe that is the real problem. That we have taken a line of mathematical speculation and run too far with it.

Prof Kaku is well known, when talking about nothing, as in 'everything came from nothing' for stating that 'it all depends upon how you define 'nothing''.

Maybe with infinity it all depends upon how you define it.

...If the universe is infinite then how big would the singularity have been? It would have been infinite too. So how could it have exploded? There was no room for an explosion...

This points to something more fundamental.

I.e. What was there before the universe ?

As you point out, there has to be somewhere for the Big Bang to bang in.

That would seem to imply a much bigger 'some place else' where the Universe was born. And that also suggests there may be other universes existing in the same 'some place else'.

So the funderment that gave birth to the Universe we know (all the background wiggly quantum bits that apparently exist and do not exist at the same time) may indeed be infinite in the accepted way. This will not in any way prevent our universe being born.

...The singularity would have occupied all of infinite space, which is impossible anyway...

Why so ? It was supposedly an 'infinitely' small point. Why should it not happen in an infinitely large space ?

We just don't know that anyway. Apparently the maths collapse when you get down to that level; most convenient.

This brings us to the question 'where is the centre of the universe?'.

Some say there isn't one. yet logic says that an explosion, particularly one of the Big Bang kind, must have had a point of origin. That would be the centre.
If there was no centre then the idea of a singularity is out the window. Using that model the Universe expanded from a point.

Anyway. That's just my point of view.

As for the word 'magical', I don't like it because it is redolent of magic tricks. and we all know that magic trick are really just slight of hand etc. The observer is just being fooled.
If something is not explainable by logic, then it is simply illogical or unknown. And unknown really means unknown at the moment.

INT21
Click to expand...

>>Prof Kaku is well known, when talking about nothing, as in 'everything came from nothing' for stating that 'it all depends upon how you define 'nothing''.

Yes he defines nothing as having dimensions therefore things can happen there. My point is that this version of nothing is not nothing, it is something. It's a common error(or trick) amongst scientists because they know full well that something cannot come from nothing. So because they need to stay away from the word 'magic'(to keep their funding and their sense of reality) they did a sleight of hand and invented a new kind of nothing(with dimension and even energy) which in fact is SOMETHING. Kaku's nothing is really theory b in my OP that something always existed(which is impossible because as Kaku points out in the real world there is no infinity).

Scientists who use the something version of nothing are not explaining where energy came from. They are just shifting the goal posts...for want of a better term.

>>Maybe with infinity it all depends upon how you define it.

Infinity is limitless according to the dictionary. In physics it is a number that cannot be counted. I prefer the former. How would you define it?

>>So the funderment that gave birth to the Universe we know (all the background wiggly quantum bits that apparently exist and do not exist at the same time) may indeed be infinite in the accepted way. This will not in any way prevent our universe being born.

How do you come to that conclusion?

>>
...The singularity would have occupied all of infinite space, which is impossible anyway...
Why so ? It was supposedly an 'infinitely' small point. Why should it not happen in an infinitely large space ?

Because infinity is not a number. It is beyond numbers. Matter/energy/space cannot be a quantity that isn't a number. Material things are measurable. Infinity only exists conceptually(like in numbers). Kaku backs me up on this and so does logic.

>>If something is not explainable by logic, then it is simply illogical or unknown. And unknown really means unknown at the moment.

No it is UNKNOWABLE. Why? because it is outside of logic. How the universe came about is not a logical puzzle, as I explained in my opening post there are only two theories of how the universe came about and neither is logical.

Magic is the word I use but illogical will do if you want. They mean the same thing.
 
Wading back into this. Fudgetusk: Are you aware of the casimir effect?
 
That, and beer goggles.
 
Fudgetusk,

Going back to your original post.

...
But the universe plainly exists so one of the theories has to be right. I put it to you that the universe came into being from absolute nothing but we should see this as a supernatural act....

You seem to be wanting it both ways here.

That the Universe was a supernatural act.

And that it came from nothing at the same time. Something you go to great lengths to say can't happen.

So it may help us to follow your line of reasoning if you first describe what the supernatural is.

In science there are four steps.

Step one. The hypothesis.

Someone come up with an idea. Say ' there are men on Mars.

Step two. The theory.

They then say something like ' well, Mars is very similar to Earth. We do know that there are people on Earth so it is possible that, although the climate is very different, there may be men on Mars'.

Step three. The experiment.

They send probes and ultimately go and look.

This leads to step four. The result.

Either they find men on Mars or they don't.

Back to the problem.

What is the experimental proof that the supernatural exists ?

You must have something that describes it or else how can you claim that it created the Universe ?

INT21
 
Xanatic* said:
Wading back into this. Fudgetusk: Are you aware of the casimir effect?
Click to expand...
Coal said:
Quite my favourite effect. Amazing.
Click to expand...

Never having heard of the Casimir effect, on googling I find it's an anomalous attraction at the quantum level operating in the nanometer range.

However, in reality I'm none the wiser. Can someone simplify it for the scientifically challenged & explain what's anomalous about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top