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

The Universe Is Supernatural

Do any of us presume to know the origins of the Universe?

Seriously?

I personally think that anyone who demands that they know, and tries to discredit any other hypothesis on our cosmogenesis should have to write out an infinite number of times the word 'Hubris' for the rest of their lives.

As for the imposition on others to describe 'It', in specific terms - well, that's not what language is about, is it?

Language, to me, is painting a thought with as much hue and chroma as is possible, glorying in the subtlety and complexity of it all - the alternative is akin to painting by numbers.

Have I mentioned the beauty of a Chocolate Lily before, that has evolved over time, to produce a living thing that moves by following the sun, coloured a beautiful bluey lavender, that has delicately fringed petals? It is able to survive in the Australian outback in extremes of temperature - -10 to 50 degrees Celsius - and at the same time smells of chocolate?

How wonderful.

It makes me want to sing to someone about how great they are...


IMG_4030_edited-1.jpg
 
...Language, to me, is painting a thought with as much hue and chroma as is possible, glorying in the subtlety and complexity of it all - the alternative is akin to painting by numbers....


WOW, and I thought you just grew potatoes.

Funny that you should mention Lilies.
I have some large Lilies, forget the name, but they are really beautiful. However, they smell to me of sewage. It is so bad that I can't stay in the green house with them with the door shut.

INT21
 
Mungoman,

You are right about the beauty of language. That is why it makes me cringe when people fall back to using the so-called 'Anglo Saxon' expletives. To me it indicates a very limited vocabulary.
But expressing an idea in a manner the ensures others will understand exactly can be the ultimate test. Particularly if one is trying to get to the bottom of an elusive idea such as alternative origins of the Universe.

The problem is even greater if someone takes a position that does not allow even the possibility of any alternatives.

INT21
 
INT21 said:
In #322 above..



fudgetusk said:
There are only two ways the universe could have come about. Either it came from nothing or it was always there. Both of these options are impossible, hence the only other option is that the universe is impossible

Or option 3 it's a simulated universe and the program had to start somewhere.

Roland Deschain's sugestion of a third way is depicted in blue.

Yet in #334

In a response to a post by myself we find; again by Fudgetusk....

...If you know a third option to where the universe came from then say it...

Guess he missed it.

Note this does not say there is a third way. It suggests there may be.

INT21
Click to expand...

I responded to the idea of a simulation by saying(roughly) where does the simulation come from. The same rules apply to a simulation. TO say it is a simulation is not a third way of the universe coming about.
 
Frideswide said:
This is a technology that supports group interaction. If you want to limit yourself to one person then use the PM system.

fudgetusk said: ↑
Clearly you can't explain your post where you clearly attempt to put out the idea that you can count to infinity. Now you're slinking away to lick your wounds.

Earlier you repeated the post you claimed showed the "count to infinity" idea. It clearly doesn't.

Why are you making this claim?
Click to expand...

Don't know what you are talking about to be honest and I find the idea of trawling this thread for answers too boring. Basically someone suggested that they could count to infinity if they had for ever. I pointed out that if you could count it it wouldn't be infinite, then they backed out of the discussion. Basically it was a win for me. The whole thread has been a win because my OP stands undefeated.
 
fudgetusk said:
Don't know what you are talking about to be honest and I find the idea of trawling this thread for answers too boring. Basically someone suggested that they could count to infinity if they had for ever. I pointed out that if you could count it it wouldn't be infinite, then they backed out of the discussion. Basically it was a win for me. The whole thread has been a win because my OP stands undefeated.
Click to expand...

this is inaccurate. The poster suggested "forever" as another infinite thing - but you misunderstood and have been repeating your mistake since then. n other words you have berated someone from your own false position, perpetuated the error and then failed to go back and correct it.

How can I have any faith in your ability to witness and describe events accurately when a very simple research task of reading your own posts trips you up?

Please explain how this is a win? The only win it reminds me of is this.... I hope you find it as funny as I did!
 
...Don't know what you are talking about to be honest and I find the idea of trawling this thread for answers too boring...

So. Basic research into one's own possible mistakes is not worth the effort.

Got to be a moral in there somewhere.

INT21
 
fudgetusk said:
I found no reference to ex nihilo on that pag
Click to expand...
It's there just scroll down. Genesis will be the easiest to draw a correlation with.

fudgetusk said:
But then you have to explain where the simulation came from.
Click to expand...
Well the simulation came from an outside agency which is not subject to the restrictions / universe we have. The creators of the program may not Have considerations we have, indeed notions of infinity and mysterious beginnings may be foisted upon us simulations to see how far we can get.

fudgetusk said:
No one else has come up with a third option, nor have you. Which is telling. Clearly I am correct in saying there are only two and both are illogical...hence the universe has to be the work of a God or something like a God.
Click to expand...
Well positing a simulation is no less correct, and addresses your issues of logic. I do not believe your assertion that you are uniquely correct.

Anyway infinity is a bit of a construct anyway. The universe isn't infinite, it's as large as the energy/matter in it. The smallest parts of the universe are not infinitely small, there are building blocks - the universe is more digital than analogue. Time itself may have a beginning and end as it is a property effected by other forces. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Anyway this is my last word on this thread as I suspect any response will be "prove it" and life is too short.
 
INT21 said:
...Language, to me, is painting a thought with as much hue and chroma as is possible, glorying in the subtlety and complexity of it all - the alternative is akin to painting by numbers....


WOW, and I thought you just grew potatoes.

Funny that you should mention Lilies.
I have some large Lilies, forget the name, but they are really beautiful. However, they smell to me of sewage. It is so bad that I can't stay in the green house with them with the door shut.

INT21
Click to expand...

Thank you for the comment INT21 - I have an adoration for the sung and spoken word and all its origins, and can appreciate greatly authors and authoresses who, when composing a sentence, can wax lyrically with plain words - such a skill can leave me transfixed.

On the other hand, I am enraptured with the Dewey decimal system, and think that Deweys skill in creating worldly pictures with his numbers leaves me in a state of ecstasy.

I put it down to my lifelong association of colours to numbers [there's a word for it somewhere, starts with an 'S'], which overlaps onto other associations I have in my life.

As for our simple little lillies and orchids here in the Antopodies - they are a delight to behold and very rarely hold a fragrance except for Dichopogon strictus - really something to experience when walking through a sward of them in our bushland, releasing such a scent of chocolate that I am transported.
 
Frideswide said:
this is inaccurate. The poster suggested "forever" as another infinite thing - but you misunderstood and have been repeating your mistake since then. n other words you have berated someone from your own false position, perpetuated the error and then failed to go back and correct it.

How can I have any faith in your ability to witness and describe events accurately when a very simple research task of reading your own posts trips you up?

Please explain how this is a win? The only win it reminds me of is this.... I hope you find it as funny as I did!
Click to expand...

If I misunderstood then why did the poster fail to explain what he meant? He just said "oh, I'm bored of this now" and vanished. Clearly I defeated him error or not.
 
INT21 said:
...Don't know what you are talking about to be honest and I find the idea of trawling this thread for answers too boring...

So. Basic research into one's own possible mistakes is not worth the effort.

Got to be a moral in there somewhere.

INT21
Click to expand...

Were you the one who said you could count to infinity if you had for ever? Laughable. and you criticise me because I simply do not care if I made an error in posting up a link?
 
Roland Deschain said:
It's there just scroll down. Genesis will be the easiest to draw a correlation with.


Well the simulation came from an outside agency which is not subject to the restrictions / universe we have. The creators of the program may not Have considerations we have, indeed notions of infinity and mysterious beginnings may be foisted upon us simulations to see how far we can get.


Well positing a simulation is no less correct, and addresses your issues of logic. I do not believe your assertion that you are uniquely correct.

Anyway infinity is a bit of a construct anyway. The universe isn't infinite, it's as large as the energy/matter in it. The smallest parts of the universe are not infinitely small, there are building blocks - the universe is more digital than analogue. Time itself may have a beginning and end as it is a property effected by other forces. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Anyway this is my last word on this thread as I suspect any response will be "prove it" and life is too short.
Click to expand...

>>Well the simulation came from an outside agency which is not subject to the restrictions / universe we have.

Says who? you are making a massive assumption. If they are not bound by the same logical laws that we are then they are not reality hence do not exist.
 
INT21 said:
...Don't know what you are talking about to be honest and I find the idea of trawling this thread for answers too boring...

So. Basic research into one's own possible mistakes is not worth the effort.

Got to be a moral in there somewhere.

INT21
Click to expand...

Where do I make a mistake? point it out to me because I've looked and I see none.
 
fudgetusk said:
If I misunderstood then why did the poster fail to explain what he meant? He just said "oh, I'm bored of this now" and vanished. Clearly I defeated him error or not.
Click to expand...

Will Sir be having some vinegar with the chips on his shoulders?
 
fudgetusk said:
Were you the one who said you could count to infinity if you had for ever?
Click to expand...

you are still doing this - NOBODY said that, you failed to understand what was said and continue to make the error. It doesn't inspire confidence in your abilities.
 
Frideswide said:
you are still doing this - NOBODY said that, you failed to understand what was said and continue to make the error. It doesn't inspire confidence in your abilities.
Click to expand...

Int21 did INFER it. I did not make an error. Show me making an error. I asked Int21to point out my error and he hasn't responded. Presumably because he knows I did not make an error. Go back and read the discussion and you'll see. If you can be bothered.
It doesn't inspire confidence in my abilities? If I'm so stupid you should find it easy to debunk my op theory. Nobody else seems to be able to. Seriously I'm wondering if it was a massive waste of time starting this thread here on this forum. YOu just don't have what it takes to get it. Pathetic.
 
Thing is though that if the Universe does not have a cause then it is the only contingent thing that ever existed without a cause preceding it.

We don't know whether the universe does have a cause or not but we DO know that 100% of all phenomena ever observed do have a cause.... so....well, the scientific rational approach seems quite an obvious one.
 
On 23rd August. Page 13 post 244, this appeared.

Fudgetusk,

Going back briefly to this business of infinity.

You say it can't exist.

So how do you account for the fact that there is no largest number ?

Any number you give me I can always make it bigger by adding 1 to it. Indefinitely.

Surely that is an example of an infinite progression.

INT21

on 5 September. page 14, post 278.

you wrote..

..mathematical infinity is just a concept. conceptually infinity exists but not practically...


On 16 September. page 15, post 295.

I responded to you with..

.....YOu seem to think that if you had for ever you could count to infinity. If you can count it it is not infinite.


...One guy even says you can count to infinity. When I am faced with all this I can only conclude that you people do not know what you are talking about and therefore I am wasting my time arguing with you....

I challenge you to point out where I said you can count to infinity.

I used the fact that any number you care to count to I can make greater by simply adding one to it. And that goes on for ever; for infinity. There is no greatest number.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, can you show where I am supposed to have claimed that one can count to infinity ? If so, please do. Or otherwise just drop the issue.

If you can't show me where this happened (and it must be on this thread somewhere, and you still persist in pushing this, Then there are only two possibilities. You either have some form of mental problem that is blinding you to what is actually written down and replacing this with what you wish to believe is there.

Or you are trolling.

No one wishes a net colleague to be seen as a troll.

INT21
 
MungomanII said:
ave I mentioned the beauty of a Chocolate Lily before, that has evolved over time, to produce a living thing that moves by following the sun, coloured a beautiful bluey lavender, that has delicately fringed petals? It is able to survive in the Australian outback in extremes of temperature - -10 to 50 degrees Celsius - and at the same time smells of chocolate?
Click to expand...

*gasp* beautifuul!
 
Seriously I'm wondering if it was a massive waste of time starting this thread here on this forum. YOu just don't have what it takes to get it. Pathetic.[/QUOTE]


Nobody else will say it, so, being the typical human that I am, I will.


Fuck off with your condescending attitude Fudgetusk, and fair fucking dinkum, your constant denigration of others shits me to tears. It's about time someone planted you one, fair up the clacker mate. Where do you get off positing a question as you have, and then slaughter people left, right and centre, with your mouth. Does it fulfill a questionable need within you to appear to be superior to others? Do you want a medal for your present behaviour - or a chest to pin it to.


You my friend have an unfortunate character that I can do without, and prefer to do without, and I refuse to stop visiting this wonderful forum just because of some ones childish behaviour. Your question is worth the thought it deserves but your reactive responses I'd expect from a bratty four year old.
.
.
.
.
.
.Okay Moderators, send me down.
 
Last edited:
fudgetusk said:
>>Well the simulation came from an outside agency which is not subject to the restrictions / universe we have.

Says who? you are making a massive assumption. If they are not bound by the same logical laws that we are then they are not reality hence do not exist.
Click to expand...

Well I said I wouldn't post again but this really cannot go un-commented.

Massive assumption. If they are not bound by the same logical laws then they don't exist? Wow. Seems to me like a lack of joined up thinking. Especially as your bringing God into the equation a few posts back seemed OK to you but another outside agency doesn't. Really? I mean really? Gods Ok but a totally unknowable outside agency running a series of simulations isn't. Wow again.

If you can reasonably explain the difference I'd love to read it.

Seems that a readily available ready made (medieval) human theme is your explanation of choice when you had a chance to say something, even it it was a rehash of the thinkers 1000's years ago.

You do realise your on a Fortean forum don't you? If you think you can post rubbish and have people unthinkingly agree then yes, you were wasting your time. Can't you see that we do get what your saying, but can see your wrong on many levels?

Can't you also see we're actually trying to help you, you know lead you to water etc.? Please stop insulting us as its beginning to wear thin.
 
Roland Deschain said:
I'd rather Mungoman was not sent down.
Click to expand...

hear hear!

and as the law must hold please may he be allowed prison visits so that I can organise a magnificent escape complete with rearing horses, pistols at dawn and lots of quaffing in taverns? :kiss:
 
INT21 said:
On 23rd August. Page 13 post 244, this appeared.

Fudgetusk,

Going back briefly to this business of infinity.

You say it can't exist.

So how do you account for the fact that there is no largest number ?

Any number you give me I can always make it bigger by adding 1 to it. Indefinitely.

Surely that is an example of an infinite progression.

INT21

on 5 September. page 14, post 278.

you wrote..

..mathematical infinity is just a concept. conceptually infinity exists but not practically...


On 16 September. page 15, post 295.

I responded to you with..

.....YOu seem to think that if you had for ever you could count to infinity. If you can count it it is not infinite.


...One guy even says you can count to infinity. When I am faced with all this I can only conclude that you people do not know what you are talking about and therefore I am wasting my time arguing with you....

I challenge you to point out where I said you can count to infinity.

I used the fact that any number you care to count to I can make greater by simply adding one to it. And that goes on for ever; for infinity. There is no greatest number.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, can you show where I am supposed to have claimed that one can count to infinity ? If so, please do. Or otherwise just drop the issue.

If you can't show me where this happened (and it must be on this thread somewhere, and you still persist in pushing this, Then there are only two possibilities. You either have some form of mental problem that is blinding you to what is actually written down and replacing this with what you wish to believe is there.

Or you are trolling.

No one wishes a net colleague to be seen as a troll.

INT21
Click to expand...


I really think that its got to be a non brainer with regards to the Universe being Infinite.It would have to be a Universe of infinite proabilites to create a place like Earth,because their are an infinite number of related systems that have come together to make it all work.The Moon the distance from the sun etc etc etc. Its relationship to the other planets their mass. In fact with a finite system it would be highly unlikely. I would go further and say because of that, it cant be real, in the classical sense.
Just take light,if anything travels at the speed of light,time has stopped,because light travels at the speed of light, the photon must be in an infinite state outside of time. If its outside of time, its also outside of speed and distance,which means its real state is infinite,and everywhere at once. If this is the real state of the Photon then it cant collapse, what we must be observing is the illusion of it collapsing, which must mean something really interesting ,....like we are interpreting as reality one of an infinite number of possibilites.
 
Mungoman,

Looking around some of the other threads, there should be no need for you to worry about being sent down.

A bloke it entitled to to his opinion.

S'truth mate.

I do think that we have reached the point with this thread where there really is no point in carrying it on.

I for one don't mind people who completely disagree with my point of view. But they need to do it with some class.

Frideswide,

...and as the law must hold please may he be allowed prison visits so that I can organise a magnificent escape complete with rearing horses, pistols at dawn and lots of quaffing in taverns?..

Magnifique !!

Por qua ?

Por qua pas.

INT21
 
Roland Deschain said:
Well I said I wouldn't post again but this really cannot go un-commented.

Massive assumption. If they are not bound by the same logical laws then they don't exist? Wow. Seems to me like a lack of joined up thinking. Especially as your bringing God into the equation a few posts back seemed OK to you but another outside agency doesn't. Really? I mean really? Gods Ok but a totally unknowable outside agency running a series of simulations isn't. Wow again.

If you can reasonably explain the difference I'd love to read it.

Seems that a readily available ready made (medieval) human theme is your explanation of choice when you had a chance to say something, even it it was a rehash of the thinkers 1000's years ago.

You do realise your on a Fortean forum don't you? If you think you can post rubbish and have people unthinkingly agree then yes, you were wasting your time. Can't you see that we do get what your saying, but can see your wrong on many levels?

Can't you also see we're actually trying to help you, you know lead you to water etc.? Please stop insulting us as its beginning to wear thin.
Click to expand...

I see a lot of hot air but no substance. You said the people who created the simulation were not bound by our laws of physics/reality and I proclaimed that a massive assumption and you have not answered that. Didn't expect you to because you know it is bullshit. WHY ARE THE CREATORS OF THE SIMULATION NOT BOUND BY OUR LAWS OF PHYSICS?

And, no, I do not expect you to answer that AGAIN.
 
anonentity said:
I really think that its got to be a non brainer with regards to the Universe being Infinite.It would have to be a Universe of infinite proabilites to create a place like Earth,because their are an infinite number of related systems that have come together to make it all work.The Moon the distance from the sun etc etc etc. Its relationship to the other planets their mass. In fact with a finite system it would be highly unlikely. I would go further and say because of that, it cant be real, in the classical sense.
Just take light,if anything travels at the speed of light,time has stopped,because light travels at the speed of light, the photon must be in an infinite state outside of time. If its outside of time, its also outside of speed and distance,which means its real state is infinite,and everywhere at once. If this is the real state of the Photon then it cant collapse, what we must be observing is the illusion of it collapsing, which must mean something really interesting ,....like we are interpreting as reality one of an infinite number of possibilites.
Click to expand...

A mass of assumptions. The universe is big enough to allow for the chance creation of life on this planet. It doesn't mean it has to be infinite. If the universe were infinite then the singularity it came from must have been infinite and hence there would have been nothing but the singularity and hence no space for the big bang explosion to take place.

>>Just take light,if anything travels at the speed of light,time has stopped,because light travels at the speed of light, the photon must be in an infinite state outside of time.

Why should the stopping of time mean the photon is in an infinite state? Prove this with a quote from a real scientist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top