The voters have decided that ShakinBacon is wrong! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
Also by ShakinBacon+29There are so many posts about there being so many posts pertaining to "How I Met Your Mother." This is one of them, amirite?
Also about Philosophy+147Lighting struck the sea to create life that runs on bioelectricity, we are all electric powered. amirite?
Also about Philosophy+107Life is a Sandbox Survival FPS, amirite?
Also by ShakinBacon+215 minute fudge... Prep time: 1 hour WTF, amirite?
Also about Philosophy+172At some point, someone's foot was exactly one foot long. amirite?
Nothing you said makes sense, and scientists have already explained the majority of what you're questioning. So instead of asking a bunch of teenagers on a random website, you ask somebody who has the knowledge to help you with this question. Also learn science please :)
I wouldn't blame you for wanting to delete that arrogant comment. But just a quick question, why post this on anonymous?
Red herring and ad homonem. Try learning philosophy, it liberates you from the informal fallacies that you've listed above (:
They're part of the informal fallacies that go against philosophy.
Tell you? Oh no. Suggesting is more correct. Also, how is it that you can state "Learn science please :)," and I can't say "try learning philosophy."? You can see how that's hypocritical.
how about you take Latin and learn how to fucking spell.
and also. He did address your argument. He said it doesn't make sense. I agree with that. Also, most teenagers don't have the knowledge of science like that.
More importantly, stop using your brain to explain things much more complicated than it. <-- that doesn't make logical sense.
How about not being an ass face and notice that I wrote it on my iTouch...Yea, I think my plan is better.
I think you're lazy. It's easy to sit around with your thumb up your ass, using your arsenal of "philosophical laws" trying to explain shit you (and I mean YOU) don't understand.
The problem with you is you're using philosophy made in a time period which used Euclidean geometry. Why is that relevant? Because you're behind the times. Philosophy (aka logic) is based off of math. Their math (Euclidean geometry) goes with their logic.
EVEN THOUGH NOW, physicists use NON-Euclidean geometry to explain the larger picture of the universe as a whole. Why do they do this? Because Euclidean geometry didn't work on it, neither then, did their logic.
That I don't understand? You're not proving me wrong here, buddy...You've never taken a Philosophy or Physics class, am I right?
Thumb in my ass? Fuck off if you're going to bitch and moan but not think.
Assuming anything exists at all:
If nothing is eternal, then everything is temporal.
If everything is temporal, then everything has a beginning.
If everything had a beginning, then being would have come from non-being.
Since 'being from non-being' violates the law of identity, it's impossible.
Therefore, 'nothing is eternal' is impossible and 'some is eternal' must be true.
Mark your sources...where is this from euclidean geometry? Where do scientists get there non-euclidean geometry? What is it called?
THEY MADE IT UP! EVERYTHING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS MADE UP! THE PHILOSOPHY. THE MATH. THE PHYSICS. (oh btw. I know more about physics than you will in your entire life. so go fuck yourself. and you know logic. non-euclidean geometry is just geometry that's not euclidean. But it's based on different conclusions of Euclid's Fifth Postulate. Instead of "Given a line, and a point off the given line, there is exactly one line that goes through the point, parallel to the given line." it will end, "there are no lines parallel to the given line" or "there are infinite lines parallel to the given line." and I don't know my sources because I got it from teachers in school. But math is a representation of logic) EVERYTHING WE MADE UP FOR OUR OWN NEED TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING AROUND US!! YOU'RE CRAZY!! ALL OF YOU!! ARE CRAZY!!
(sorry for the all caps outburst. It's just I read Catch-22 this summer and every once in a while I feel like acting like Yossarian)
So, I give...Are you a troll?
Is the significance of the geometry just to see something in a different light? If so, I've already accomplished that.
How can math be logic if logic isn't abstract and math is?
No. I'm a South Park character
Oh...I wouldn't know, I don't watch shit tv....
I'm only kidding; I love South Park, but I hate Token. He's the biggest dick on the show next to Craig...Damn Craig.
Do you hate Obama too?... because I might be seeing a trend
He's better than the last douche bag we had. I have nothing against White people either. I'm White, I swear...
ALSO: No She didn't. She defers the argument and then proceeds to attack me and NOT the argument.
Matter has its origins around 13.7 - 15 billion years ago and so, is not eternal. Your argument is invalid.
The the universe would have had to come fr nothinng, which violates the being from non-being law, which inturn is the Law of Identity
If you're gonna challenge a scientific statement, use scientific laws. You're not gonna get anywhere using "philosophical laws" (Lol).
The universe coming from nothing would violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, yes. I don't know how the universe got to be and I won't pretend to. But I am quite confident, given the evidence and countless expert testimony, it came to be around 13.7 billion years ago.
Someone please look up String Theory.
Can someone please get a Quantum Physics professor on feed?
I think you mean a metaphysics professor?
I think you're dangerously high
So you're admiting that philosophy has it uses in science and reason, and you contadicted yourself. I disd get somehwhere, after all.
No, I didn't understand your reasoning at all. I just read "The the universe would have had to come fr nothinng" and the 1st Law came to mind. I was helping you argue against me because it looked like you needed help. Then I argued against the argument I gave you.
I'm sorry for my spelling mistakes, but I am typing on my iPod. I needed no help, because I proved my theory. So tell me then, if you don't know what the matter was prior to the big bang, would you agree that it was eternal?
Matter, as far as we know, didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. So, no. And before you ask me how it got there, we aren't quite sure about that either. But we're sure it got there around 13.7 Billion years ago.
So then would you agree that whatever created the matter, would have been eternal?
I'm not so sure matter had to be created. And even if it was somehow, I don't understand the dynamics of such a creation enough to claim it was always there. Basically what I'm saying is, I'm too ignorant to agree or disagree with your statement.
I now see where you're and respect that, and I understand. Until we meet again, then.
How does that violate the Law of Identity? And even if it did violate it, why would that mean that the universe must be spiritual in origin?
Because infinite cannot exist in finite, they're complete opposites. Because in the most basic of presupppositions, either the univear is spiritual or material. It can only be one in the end, with people believing in a mixed degrees of both.
*universe, I'm sorry, my iPod is a little on the retarded side.
The universe isn't forever though.
Which is exactly why matter (energy) can't exist within it: Since it ends, it has to have a beginning, and since energy is eternal, it shouldn't exist in our temporal world.
Matter is not eternal in that sense. It will last as long as the universe does, and cease to exist with the universe.
Impossible: If matter isn't created, it can't be destroyed.
You're all trying WAY too hard to sound smart.
That is exactly why I No-Wayed the OP. It's one of the most pretentious, I'm-smarter-than-you sounding posts I've read in a while.
Alright, really? Piss off if you're going to attack me and not the argument. If you don't understand the words, I'd be more than fucking delighted to tell you what they mean.
Not really: All those big words I'm using are philosophical. And that's an ad homonem. How about isteadnof attacking me, attack the argument.
I'm sorry, *instead of
*ad hominem. Even when you throw out words to try to sound smart, you fail.
They have stated several times that their iPod is messing up their spelling.
If you've been paying attention to anything I've been saying about, you'd know that I'm typing on my iPod, and that I apologized not once, BUT TWICE for my spelling mistakes. Again, if I must: Forgive me.
I don't know which way to vote
One theory of how time and the universe exists is that we're in a 5D hypersphere. Naturally, it's also possible for time to be circular.
How can I hear more of this? This sounds interesting.
I think it was Einstein who created part of it and then my high school geometry teacher that taught is that and speculated about how if the first 3 dimensions are circular, then the fourth (questionably the fourth, some do not consider it a dimension and others consider it a partial dimension.) may also be so. The reason that it's 5 dimensional is slipping out of my mind, but I believe it has something to do with the fact that it's a sphere on a sphere. There's a whole bit of Riemannian geometry involved here that would help explain it.
If it isn't a trouble, where would you recommend I find more articles about this?
I would not know. As I said, I heard it from my geometry class. However, there may be something in my notes about a book.
We just talked about how matter is actually destroyable in Chemistry today.
Ever heard of the law of conservation?
The law of conservation of states that it can neither be created or destroyed, only transferable from one form to the next. So, think about it: If you burn a piece of paper, you're still left with the ashes of that piece of paper.
I know this. Buut when you start talking about traveling at the speed of light, a lot of things change.
But it is impossible to travel at the speed of light: E=mc2, so you would literary have to weigh nothing in order to reach the speed of light, no exceptions.
Haha yeah I agree, that's actually what I said to my teacher. Hypothetically, yes but it's not actually going to happen.
So then, you agree: Matter cannot be created or destroyed and that the speed of light is impossible to reach, right?
If you're interested in physics, might I recommend you learn something? It's called the photon clock theory. It really is one of those things that makes you wonder..
I agree with that statement, but not the post.
Thanks, I'll look into it. :)
More that fair enough!(:
The speed of light has been seen to change in different regions of our universe, this doesn't have any significant scientific backing, but the thought that it can change, completely debases a vast majorities of theories.
Also on another note, Energy and Matter do not equal each other. Paper does not equal ash. Your theory is based on that idea but it is not true.
No, it cannot change. You can throw a ball at 30mph outside of a car going 30 mph, and have to ball go 60 miles per hour. The same can not be said for a particle of light because it behaves as a wavelength.
Really? Paper+fire=ashes of paper. Like I said, you can do WHATEVER you want to anything, but it will always exist in some other form. Even for a candle, which has magically disappearing wax, will (fire) use the oil (wax) as fuel for the fire, burning it off. In this way, wax+fire=light energy being created FROM a prior source, which is the wax.
This is probably the most confusing thing I've ever seen.
May I ask why you agreed if you didn't understand? Lol, It's okay. Every time a post says "Girls:" and it's true for me, I usually YYA it.
Haha, nice! I do actually understand it... well... slightly. It just made my head hurt d:
Well, some scientists might know the answers, but people who dedicate decades on this sort of material probably won't know anything! So actually, nevermind.
I know, and I never claimed for this to be true! I thought "If people believed in the Big Bang, and supported it, I should be able to make something of of the same pretenses seem true, and back THAT by scientific findings." All in all, I didn't mean to debunk anything, just that there are some holes in everyone's logic that allow it to be so that people can pull this (What I wrote on top) crap. I do think, though it has truth to it, because (just being philosophical, here) it does seem to carry SOME of the validity of the Big Bang theory, as you said above. Make no mistake though, they are not one in the same.
So, you're saying that since matter cann't be destroyed, nothing is matter, and that this whole world is made up? What religion are you praticing, again?
What are you on about? Matter is never destroyed, it can be turned into other forms of matter, but you cannot destroy it. You can burn a piece of paper, but you will still have the ashes of that paper, no?
I am also a practicing Hindu, If you must know. I'm a convert from Catholicism.
I said you can't destroy matter. And in your OP you said that something like that can't exist in time and, therefore, the entire world is spiritual.
You can't create matter either, agreed? So tell me, then: Living in time (as we do now), how is it possible for matter to have been created in time? After you realize that it couldn't have been, you can either accept that all or some of spirit is eternal (as opposed to just matter being eternal), but accepting one means accepting the other. Then, you can conclude that all of spirit is eternal.
Look, I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert on matter, laws of science, or religion. So, all I really have to go on is the information you provide me, which I don't think is adequate for a discussion. So . . . I'm just going to stop talking. Maybe a few years down the road, when I have a greater understanding of science and religion, we can pick up where we left off. Deal?
More than fair, and I understand.
how much weed did you smoke before coming up with such a "philosophical" question. if your looking for a real answer go talk to some scientists, if you wanted to look like a giant doucher, you've succeeded
I spoke with my chemistry teacher about this: He said, though valid, it's not the correct way to think. I said why not, to which he replied, "you shouldn't think that way". It's not my problem if you think I'm a douche, I can really care less about what you think about me. What I care more about is attacking the argument, not the person stating the argument.
There is no correct way to think, and in my opinion, science is subjective. You can't be a 100 % sure how the universe is created. I think the way OP is thinking isn't that weird. But ShakinBacon, don't expect any philosophical answers on this site, please. The people on here barely know the difference between a theory and a scientific theory...
But I am the original poster?Lol
I wasn't expecting an answer, I was expecting people to point out a flaw, because my chemistry teacher couldn't and nor could my philosophy teacher, but both said that I shouldn't think this way about it.
Matter cannot be eternal E= MC2, clearly shows that in extreme conditions matter can be reduced to energy
Matter can be tranferred from one form of energy to another, but claiming matter isn't eternal is an informal fallacy on its own, violating the law of identity.
You're using "matter" and "eternal" as one in the same word-- if the law of identity is A=A, then you can't say it can be applied to matter and eternal. They're two different things! One's an adjective.
Also, as the person above me smartly said, Einstein showed that matter and energy are interchangeable...therefore, matter--> energy is no longer matter, no longer eternal.
Also...the big discussion above...all matter was created (a beginning) during the big bang. Stephen Hawking teaches this. 'Nuff said.
Hat is not what I have stated: Matter is eternal. Correction: the concept is an adjative, and what you just gave is an appeal to ignorance. Also, appeal to authorty: I might not think hawking is all that knowledgeable. In the end, you don't know me.
Alright. Well, I've said as much as I'm going to. I think I'm right, and you think you're right. Therefore we don't need to continue this discussion any further.
I will say that I, and many others I'm sure, don't appreciate that you're throwing fallacies around like crazy...in my opinion, it's annoying, and I also don't think that that sort of philosophy/logic will prove anything. It sort of presumes that we're using a fallacy on purpose to provide advantage to our argument-- that's not the case. We're writing what we think, and you're finding fallacies in it.
Anyways, thanks for your time...I still respect your opinion. Have a nice day :)
How is it a fallacy and to which of the fallacies can it be grouped under?
If I can find fallacies in what is written, then it has fallacies. If an argument is not sound, I wouldn't even bother questioning it.
Alright, well. That's what you think and the more close-minded you are, the more blissful you could be, so more power to you. I wish you an amazing life.
You seem like a thinker/debater, Bacon. I'll give you some advice.
When you're engaging in informal debates, you don't want to say stuff like "that's an appeal to ignorance" or "your statement commits the fallacy of ad populum" without explaining it. You don't try to convince your opponent, only the audience. You have to use informal terminology to better communicate your ideas to the audience who may not be well-versed in the rules of logic, scientific laws, philosophical "laws", etc.
And stop the "I wish you an amazing life" crap.
Thanks for the pointers, but I did state why they were as such. For example, "the concept is an adjective, and (so) what you just gave is an appeal to ignorance".
In all honesty, if someone tells me they no longer further wish to discuss, what have they accomplished? Basically, it's until we have conflicting ideologies that we will meet again. Until then, what's wrong with wishing them well.
Yeah, no one knows what you're talking about when you say that. Even I don't know.
Appeals to ignorance:
1. "There is no evidence supporting the existence of God, therefore, there is no God."
2. "There is no evidence disproving the existence of God, therefore, there is a God."
If my english comprehension is okay, I'm pretty sure Paradoxal didn't commit that fallacy.
An appeal to ignorance is assuming someone meant something that wasn't meant in a statement, but it is at your fault for not understanding (which is why it's ignorance). Basically, appealing to the unknown using terms that aren't direct.
No, that's the strawman fallacy. In this case, it was unintentional. You need to get your fallacies straight, bro.
Bacon presents position A.
Paradoxal presents position B, a distorted version of A.
Paradoxal argues against position B.
Paradoxal commits the strawman fallacy, unintentionally.
Then I must have wrote it wrong on my notes. Wouldn't that then be hasty generalization?
Nope. Hasty generalization:
"A man walks into a mall and sees a bunch of Asians and only a few whites. He concludes the vast majority of the shoppers is Asian."
It's basically the same as the fallacy of small sample when dealing with quantities. When you're not dealing with quantities, it can go like
"I gave a homeless person money and he bought booze. All homeless people buy booze with the money they get."
In this case, it's essentially the inductive version of the fallacy of converse accident; you spot the exception and conclude it's the rule, hastily. Either way, Paradoxal didn't commit this one. He just said "eternal" is an adjective, and it is.
The concept of eternal is an adjective. When I say that matter is eternal, I'm literally saying matter (the concept of) is eternal (with eternal being a noun).
There is a noun version of the word "eternal", but you're not using it properly. When you say "matter is eternal", the word eternal is describing the matter; it's an adjective.
The only way that word can be used as a noun is as a standalone as in, "The eternal", which is used in place of something ever-lasting, like a god maybe. The way you used it, it's definitely an adjective.
So be it: Realize though that I'm saying matter is eternal. He's thinking that I'm using both interchangeably, which isn't the case. You can't say that eternal is matter.
Also, the theory of relativity begs to differ: Einsten showed the world that energy and matter are the same. Energy=matter times the speed of light squared.
do you know what gives something mass?
Nobody knows what gives matter it's mass, therfore you have no right to reach your conclusion if you do not know how the creation and therfore destruction of mass works. You are basing your argument on very weak science and naming under 'philosophy'
Okay, mass is a property of matter, and I never claimed to know otherwise. If I did, please show me where.
There is nothing scientific about my post, but the theories are interlaced with science. Now, this isn't your daily pseudo-science from a Jesus freak, here. All the following thoughts are philosophical in nature, and only have some to do with validated scientific theories.
At the biginning of the universe, there was a small pinpoint of energy, smaller than an atom. Some say a graapefuit, but it really doesn't matter. There were four spatial dimensions and no temporal dimensions, so no change could take place. Suddenly and spontaneously, one dimension changed to a temporal dimension, and the incredibly dense point of energy began expanding. That amount of energy in one place was extremely hot, and as the universe expanded, the spreading of the energy caused it to cool, and when the universe reached a certain size, in inflated. It hit an expansion speed bump that increased the rate of expansion to greater than the speed of light. At a certain point, measured in yoctoseconds, the universe cooled enough to create matter. particles of matter and antimatter came into existence, but annihilated each other upon contact, in a 1:1 ratio. There were also some X bosons. they were paradoxically composed of both matter and antimatter, and when they decayed, the release these particles and antiparticles. THe X boson decayed into more matter than antimatter and the antiX decayed into more antimatter than matter.
I would like to make several things clear. 1. I am NOT smart. I have never completed an IQ test in my life, but I have memorised a lot of sciency stuff. 2. i am a science geek, and own more than 20kg of science books. If anyone reads science as much a s me, they would know as much, or more than me. 3. i am going to expain a whole bunch of crap here about the big bang, matter and mass, so son't read it if you don't want to. Its too long, so I'll be posting it in parts.
At the biginning of the universe, there was a small pinpoint of energy, smaller than an atom. Some say a graapefuit, but it really doesn't matter. There were four spatial dimensions and no temporal dimensions, so no change could take place. Suddenly and spontaneously, one dimension changed to a temporal dimension, and the incredibly dense point of energy began expanding. That amount of energy in one place was extremely hot, and as the universe expanded, the spreading of the energy caused it to cool, and when the universe reached a certain size, in inflated. It hit an expansion speed bump that increased the rate of expansion to greater than the speed of light. At a certain point, measured in yoctoseconds, the universe cooled enough to create matter. particles of matter and antimatter came into existence, but annihilated each other upon contact, in a 1:1 ratio. There were also some X bosons. they were paradoxically composed of both matter and antimatter, and when they decayed, they released these particles and antiparticles. THe X boson decayed into more matter than antimatter and the antiX decayed into more antimatter than matter.
However, the difference between amounts of matter and antimatter from the X as more than from the anti X, resulting in slightly more matter in the universe. Some time after, there was not enough heat for the universe to create more matter, and could only work with what was already there. There were quarks, in six 'flavours' up,down, charm,strange, top and bottom. they all decayed into up and down. three quarks came together to form nucleons. The protons and neutrons. protons are two ups and one down, while neutrons are slightly heavier, composed of one up and two downs. Neutrons were unstable unless bonded to a proton in an atomic nucleus. They did just that, but by the time they did, most of the neutrons had decayed into protons, releasing a single electron. Os, most protons were left alone, to form hydrogen nuclei, which is why the most abundant substance in the universe is hydrogen.
The nucleons came together to form nuclei of helium and lithium. Also deuterium and tritium, isotopes of hydrogen. All other elements fere forged in the thermonuclear fusion taking place in stars. There were lots of other particles, such as WIMPs, Y bosons, W bosons, gravitons, gluons, photons, primordial black holes and the Higgs bosons, also known as the God particles. You can look up each of these yourself, if you don't already know. They're really quite interesting if you can understand them. If you don't think so, then you understand why i'm a science geek. The Higgs boson is a mysterious particle that is believed to give matter mass. There is a network called the Higgs Field, that clusters around matter and gives it mass. The Higgs boson facilitates this, but exists for only a fraction of a second so serve its purpose, like a spark igniting a fire.
There are two possible ends to our universe, both resulting in the complete or near complete destruction of matter. In the first, gravity stops our universe expanding and reverts it to the pinpoint of energy. amtte is destroyed and converted back to pure energy. The second end is that dark energy overcomes gravity and the universe expands forever. The supermassive black holes in the centre of each galaxy grow as they suck in all the universe's matter. When there is none left, the black holes begin to evaporate Hawking radiation and eventually disappear, leaving only stray particles, and a lot of energy, spread over and incredibly large volume.
i hope I have cleared up everyone's questions, and proven everyone right or wrong here. if you don't believe me, go to Wikipedia, buy the book Big Bang (it should have an orange explosion and big silver letters spelling Big Bang on the front. Its a big, thin book.) Also look up leptons for electron, neutrino, muon and others.
I have found these explinations vastly interesting, could you suggest some online reading material for younger years? I feel I am much younger than the others to comment on this post.
Ummm... no. Sorry. I've been reading science since I was four, but my parent's only got broadband when I was 11, so i never had to find simplified sites. You could try to torrent the big bang ebook( if it exists. I'm not sure). that's quite simplified in the sense that it doesn't use words that most people don't know.