WWLabRat

Eric Whitacre - Lux Aurumque

reading all you discussion i feel you are not able to understand the question is that , was there something before big-bang?let us say it was a universe contracted to a size of sub-atomic particle , then where it came from, if one can answer ?except stupid religious theories!!!!well matter came into existence after big bang as famous equation of Einstein proves.Dear Byron, "bigbang is considered as creation or beginning of universe not expansion of very small dense universe ". well what was here at the point between Nothing and creation of universe.i know its still unknown. but if anybody can help upgrade my knowledge ?

Was there something before the Big Bang? My friend, you have just asked the million dollar question for which no one has the answer. Any theory that we currently have is speculation at best. Other than that, we don't have much more than the thoughts religion would provide.

Technically there couldn't be a point between nothing-ness and creation. Creation either is or is not. There's not exactly room for middle ground.

Epic Rap Battles of History - Sarah Palin vs Lady GaGa

I don't think I have to explain myself much further on this topic. You are using a different approach, which is minimalist. I call myself a maximalist. By drawing the distinction I am not saying that things are unpredictable and I am not saying that they are predictable to any given person, I'm just saying that if our knowledge were sufficiently maximal, the predictions would approach and eventually become 100% probable.

 

You proposing the method of narrowing down a bit to whether it is even or odd is a categorical fallacy. It's an abstract approach to intelligence and it has no basis in reality. It's not that these conceptions are not able to be manifested, just that they are emergent properties of the brain and capable to be externalized. When it comes to externalization, we have to consider all of the other knowledge that emerged but just didn't have the strength in numbers to be externalized. A theory of mind cannot be based solely on subjective assumptions and should not be a rule-based approach. There definitely are laws of nature that constrain our freedom, and assuming this means that you must also assume that the mind does not deviate from these laws.

 

We have approximately 10 billion neurons, our neurons each have their own system which is connected to other systems. Every neuron is useful to some extent. When a neuron is activated, information is prompted and becomes recognizable, this much is necessary. What is not necessary is for our cells to have charts and graphs monitoring the trajectory and contact between every particle that goes through the cell. Why would our brains need that information? They don't, unless it comes to a scientific endeavour. The theory of everything proposed by Einstein turns out to be insufficient when it comes to the actual process of recognizing and prompting information. In this sense, BF Skinner had a much more accurate hypothesis, even though that one is mathematically and logically insufficient as well.

I don't think I see how I am a minimalist when it comes to the mind... Granted I do use only those bits of information that are actually relevant instead of your "maximalist" approach of using all data regardless of whether or not it is essential to our definition. And I'm saying that no matter how vast our knowledge may be, there's always room for error, whether from a computer or a brain. Nothing is 100% probable. At that point it would no longer be probable and would then be absolute. But, since there's always a chance of something occurring that wasn't predicted, then you can't have 100% predictability.

I also fail to see how narrowing down possibilities in a guessing game is a fallacy. All I have done is broken down what the mind naturally does without you realizing it. When some one says guess a number, even before they give a range, you are already arranging the numbers you know into categories (even/odd, divisible by..., fractions, imaginary numbers, etc). When the range is set, you can narrow those categories down. Now, instead of an infinite string of numbers, it now becomes part of a finite group (in this case 1-10). Most people will guess a number between 3 and 7 because it's the median and they are more likely to select the number or at least get close to it. But don't forget that between each number (between 3 and 4 or 5 and 6, etc) there is an infinite number of decimals that could follow. To be able to predict in infinites is an improbability.

I think you need to check your definitions a bit... Intelligence is a measure of someone's ability to comprehend, to understand, not a measure of what they know. You do understand that the mind is not a physical manifestation and from there can not be measured. This inherently makes it subjective, not objective. Since it's subjective, then the strict application of rules is pointless.

We may have 10 billion neurons, but each neuron individually is useless. It is only by networking with other neurons that they become useful at all. And our cells don't need charts and graphs to make sense of data. Charts and graphs are there to organize data into an easily understandable medium. Plus, individual cells aren't conscious, else we would be aware of every single cell in our bodies and would be in constant pain any time a cell dies off. Just imagine constant pain as your layers of skin slough off on a daily basis... And there's plenty of need for our brains to visualize data. Think about how people write out lists when trying to weigh pros and cons of different decisions.

Not sure what the Theory of Everything is doing in your argument...

 

If you're not going to bother answering my question then why reply at all? On second thoughts don't bother answering this, it is clearly a waste of both our time.

He has already answered your question. Just because he didn't answer the way you want doesn't mean that he hasn't answered at all.

Your deterministic look at things is completely ignorant of the way the world is around you. Everything has a level of chance to it. Even the most repeated tests, no matter how standard still have a deviation. If there were no such deviation, there would be no need for one to graph things on a scatter plot. Hell, it wouldn't even be able to form a line if you were to graph data. If your deterministic view of the world were true, all data would be represented as a single point on a coordinate plane. For something to be completely and perfectly predictable, there could be no chance that it would do anything other than what was already predicted. Say, for example, that you are running a series of pH tests on a 7.00 buffer. That buffer has a known pH of 7. You could test that buffer on different models of meters and still come up with a pH of 7. However there's still always, no matter how high quality that buffer may be, at least a 0.00000000001% chance that it will deviate. No matter how infinitesimally small a chance is, it's still a chance and still leaves room for error that could not be present in a deterministic world. Going back to the 1 through 10 scenario I mentioned, no computer, or person for that matter, could predict whether or not I would lie and from there what the number may be. It could narrow down a bit based on whether or not it is even, odd, or what it's divisible by, but until I actually say what it is, there's always a margin of error.

How are brains not able to measure data? And even still, if they weren't, how would this translate to not being distinguishable from action? Even someone who is unconscious can still perform action. Usually these are referred to as reflexes. Sometimes they are correct in causing one to move away from harm (such as a tennis ball being thrown directly at the person and said person dodging) or incorrect in causing the person to move directly in the path of danger (person moves towards ball). And by the Law of Infinite Probability, there is a chance, albeit astronomically slim, but a chance all the same, that a second racket could "appear" to be able to hit both balls simultaneously. However for this to be possible, all the matter that would make up said secondary racket would have to come together at the same time and same place in the correct structure in order for us to see it, feel it, and for the ball to be repelled by it. It would be incredible for the matter to "appear" there, it would be something that much more amazing for it to be able to hold its form long enough to cause an observable effect.

You say that the other two are untestable, which is false. I assume that you're talking about the soul and the metaphysics of computers. The idea that the metaphysics of computers is untestable is false in my opinion. Now that there is a consensus that the free will is an illusion (and as reverse engineers of the brain it would be contradictory to assume that there is a free will), we can go about testing theories that involve brain activities computationally. As Chomsky says, not much is learned in this pursuit, maybe around the margins, but a lot of evidence is utilized (evidence concerning physics, biology, atomic and molecular science, chemistry, and other topics of the sort). I know personally that you can describe these processes (such as quantum entanglement) and make the computer carry out operations that sufficiently replicate this type of occurrence. It turns out that you can see just by looking at efficiency (whether the computer is able to process the instructions in a desirable time frame) whether you are on the right track, because we have to assume that nature is "perfectly efficient", and given this assumption, a computer should be able to carry out tasks within a desirable timeframe if they are true to natures efficiency. It turns out that you can have a MASSIVE memory, computationally, and it appears that regardless of the length of the list, by analyzing separate strings, you can efficiently access the list within the blink of an eye (even if the list has a length greater than 2846946483 units [of knowledge]). So, therefor, I have to assume that the metaphysics of computer science is an empirical endeavour. Not only is it empirical, it is necessarily deterministic; there is absolutely no possibility of making the system "random" or "chaotic" or "free" because these are notions that are non-existent in nature. They are unobservable. The universe is ordered (which I, as a computational linguist, would call "grammatical"). I will not comment on the soul any further than to say that the universe is expanding and one should consider the implications proposed by Krauss's argument, something from nothing. Our body has clear cut parameters, there are very distinct constraints that guide the flow of energy, and information, to be necessarily sufficient with respect to the body of the cell; the membrane that defines the parameters of our body. The soul, in my opinion, is also a real indefinite term, and for my purposes at least, I can go about theorizing and testing the metaphysics without paying even a moment of attention to the probability of having a soul. In my opinion, I define the mind (which one may call a soul) as a finite recursive process only operating to the extent that the system containing the process is not malfective. In other words, while mind == 0: perform theorized operation.

 

In this sense, we can safely ignore the soul as long as our experiments sufficiently replicate observed behavior.

To say that there is no "free will" is also to say that I don't have any choices that I make, ever. It is a completely deterministic way to look at things. That I can tell it would take a greater stretch to see the world as deterministic than it would be to say that we each determine what our place in life is. Also, where do you get that there is a consensus on the world being predetermined? Without getting too much into religion, to say that everything is the way it is because there was no other way that it could happen is almost impossible. Think about every single thing that is done on a daily basis. Think of every choice that is made. Do I get out of bed or stay in it? Do I brush my teeth after I shower or before? Bacon and eggs or toast to go? Take the interstate or back roads? Every single thing that allows for a choice to be made between a minimum of two things is proof that free will exists. If even one choice is made different, a deterministic world could not exist.

As far as something from nothing, anything with emergent properties denies this. going down to one of the most basic things that shows obvious evidence of this: the cell. On it's own, the cell is nothing more than the organized structure of various chemicals bonded together in a recognizable pattern. However of this structure we get the most basic unit of what is known as life. The same thing could be said of the mind/soul. That and consciousness are emergent properties that as far as we can tell so far is only existent among animals.

Also, I'm not sure I agree with you that nature is inherently efficient. There are plenty of things that would indicate otherwise. If that were the case, it's doubtful that there would be any life larger than single celled organisms. In multi-cellular organisms more energy is needed to be able to keep "feeding" the individual cells. Cells also have to become specialized and only express certain parts of their genetic code. An easy example would be the human body. We have cells in our eyes that take in light reflected off surfaces so that we see where we're going so that we can catch our prey. We have lungs to be able to take in air and process the Oxygen so that it can be transported by our blood cells to the muscle cells. The energy that has already been stored in our bodies is consumed so that we can run after the prey. Once the prey has been caught, we must eat it. This involves the entirety of the digestion system. Eventually, once that's broken down, it has to be excreted as waste from our bowels or through sweat glands. I think it's safe to say that being a single cell would make that a lot easier. Chemicals could be processed directly instead of being broken down by acids in our stomachs.

And about your next to last line there on the soul... In order for that to be true you would then have to be stating that those with mental deficiencies have no mind/soul. And how is nothing in nature random/chaotic? Sure things may have chances that they will go one way or the other, but that doesn't mean that there isn't some chaos. Even breaking it down to the simple "I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10" there's still some randomness to it as you don't know it's outcome. It could, in all actuality come down to more than 10 possible solutions. I could either have thought of a number outside the range I stated or I could outright lie about whether or not you guessed the correct number. It wouldn't be known to you, or anyone for that matter, until I actually said it. Think of Schroedinger's Cat. Whether it's dead or alive is unknowable, and therefore random, until it is actually observed.

If the teachers are teaching bias and blame moves to the parents for not complaining to the school system it would lead to a cyclical argument of who the blame goes to from there. From the parents it would then shift to the student because they could research the topics on their own. Having no one of higher knowledge to really guide them in their learning it would then shift back to the schools. Really, it's an all around failure to address the topic, imagined or not, as a whole.

And even then, it's not just science that experiences this same apathy for a complete education. Topics like History and English are just as susceptible to this ignorance as science is. In history, students are only being taught a focus of how events effected the United States (at least in America that's how it is, I can't speak for the Europe). In English, after middle school, students really only focus on the books and short stories that are written, not on the language itself. After I realized this in high school, I started attending summer school of my own will because the teacher actually taught the English language, not the books written in it.

Unfortunately, the blame game must continue because it's not just the teachers/parents/students/school system; it's also the curriculum the teachers are made to teach, the books they are told to teach from, and the individuals who write those books. But this blame could go on and on, but being a minor post in a forum doesn't give me the voice or authority to address these issues.

And we have gotten off topic... Sorry...

It is unclear how one encourages people to become scientists, except by educating them about science and letting them decide to make a career move, perhaps with advice from a career counselor. IMO everyone should get a basic education in science, as part of their elementary and high school education. Beyond that, it is their choice.

The problem is not that everyone isn't receiving basic science education, EdEarl. The problem is that what they are being taught is incomplete at best, incorrect at worst. An easy and ever prevalent indication of this is in middle school education when you are first learning the physics of motion. All of this is being taught with a complete disregard to opposing forces, without including gravitational forces, etc. I know that it's still elementary education, but that's also the problem. They are being taught incomplete information from the start which only furthers the students' ignorance as time goes on. As this ignorance continues, on into the university level, they are suddenly surprised when formulas and other information they thought to be true now no longer works. If you need another example of this, in elementary biology classes they are taught that ear lobes are genetically inherited when that isn't the case. Or that identical twins are completely identical, when in reality they are not.

Rather than push for a more gender equal science education, I'd strive for the education that they are being taught to be a bit more complete. It is up to the individuals, male and female alike, in science to then decide for themselves whether they want to further their knowledge and potentially increase the knowledge of others or to let someone else handle it.

I don't see how there is any gender inequality in the field of science. Most people only relate scientists to research when in fact there are so many other fields that use science than just that. There are those, for instance, that are in my line of work (wastewater treatment) who run the laboratories and the treatment plants. My manager is female. I may run the lab during the week, but she still runs the laboratory Monday mornings to check the samples collected over the weekend. Granted it is part engineering, but it's mostly a scientific field. There's also doctors, nurses, psychologists/psychiatrists, forensic officers, research and development for companies, etc. So, again I see the problem as being who's deciding what the problem is. Without a complete look at what types of scientific work there is, you're bound to miss what type of people are doing it.

I remember that the story included Mary, her sister, Joseph, God, some Angels and Shepherds etc, but as far as I recall, no physicians.

There were some "wise men" but they got there a bit late to comment on the issue.

As far as I can tell, the "evidence" of Mary's virginity s that she said so,

I suspect that not all such assertions are honest and accurate.

So her sister, God, angels, and shepherds were all there the entire 9 months of pregnancy looking up her skirt to see if the seal was broken? I highly doubt that. Joseph may have checked simply because it was customary in a marriage (they were betrothed after all) to make sure that the bride to be was a virgin. At that time, if she was no longer a virgin, she would have been stoned to death. Also Mary's father and future father in law would have checked to make sure it was intact. No sense paying a dowry if the goods were "bad". Outside of that, no one would have been making sure that it wasn't broken.

On top of that there is no mention of anything happening between the time that her pregnancy is foretold and the time that John the baptist is born. That's a three month span. Even still, after all that, Joseph still takes Mary into his home as his wife instead of divorcing her under the law. Also, as I recall Elizabeth wasn't there during labor. In fact, and unfortunately I don't have a bible at hand to check, I don't recall any mention of Elizabeth after John the Baptist was born...

And me.

And I

Qualia cannot be separate to brain states, not for the purpose of reverse engineering the brain. We have to assume that knowledge exists physically in the brain, we also have to assume that it is recognizable. Knowledge may move throughout the brain, but the system that recognizes the knowledge is much more stationary. I guess that qualia could be different at different moments, but the term itself is much too broad when we're trying to measure/discuss something that is necessarily precise. My point is that we need to identify something specific rather than tarry on real indefinite terminology.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79425-specific-method-of-measuring-mind-activity/

The problem though is that this whole thread is making comparisons between four separate things: computer binary functions, electrical/chemical processes in the brain, metaphysics of computers, and the soul. Only two of these are even physical in nature and are able to be measured by modern technology. The other two are non physical and untestable.

How can the brain not be reverse engineered by studying the various states that it can be in? Sufficient mapping of brain processes would, in theory, allow one to make an acceptable "blueprint" of the organization and depth of process that each lobe is responsible for. You read every day that more depth is added to what we know of the various parts of the brain. The more we know, the easier it is to replicate. It used to be impossible to replicate a limb, but we now have robotic arms/legs, artificial hearts, etc. It's not unrealistic to believe that it would be feasible to make an adequate facsimile of the human brain that would be able to hold the memories, thoughts, and personality of a person. Only by bridging the gap between natural and artificial would we be able to weed out if the soul exists and from there whether it is an emergent property of the person or the body.

 

Exactly my point.

 

 

 

 

Thankfully, I didn't come up with that bit of craziness. Why it is used as an example.

 

Parthenogenesis is at the far end of theoretically possible, but wouldn't have any reason to think it would result in someone with male characteristics.

 

Only other real world thing would be if Mary was a chimera with a former male sibling's cells. In that case Jesus would be normal in terms of his genetics, if not the circumstances of his conception.

Other than Chimerism, another example could be a Microperforate Hymen. This would have caused the hymen to allow sperm to pass through without it being broken. To a physician back then it would have appeared to be a virginal conception.

Ode to a Superhero by Weird Al Yankovic

I'm really not saying miracles are real.

 

I'm saying there is some evidence out there. Not the best quality of evidence nor delivered by the most reputable research, but still evidence to consider. I'm sure most people have seen the assorted documentaries and whatnot.

 

You venture too far down that path though and you are left talking about the Omega Point theory, baryon-lepton conservation and Jesus being a XX male.

 

My personal plan is to wait until I die and then ask. God and/or an Afterlife may not exist, but one can still make plans based on a potential.

 

Anyways in that vein this is reaching my limit for religious debate. Gets too circular after a very short while.

If there is evidence out there, then no faith is required anyway...

And Jesus being XX means that he would be a she. Are you sure you don't mean XXY?

I had the same idea as ElijahCross. I think it would be easily possible if he were looking into a mirror. Although at that point he would be put into an infinite loop. Because the original time he was there he was just looking into a mirror then every single time he relives those three seconds he would be forced to look directly into the mirror again until he was transported back three seconds to look into a mirror again and again and again endlessly.

Division of the loaves and fishes? Pillars of salt?

 

You could debate whether they were speaking literally or not, but you could make that same point about any of the assorted miracles in the Bible.

 

Some of the geological and medical miracles maybe. Some of those explanations make "Goddidit" start to look reasonable, but I'll allow the possibility.

 

I just think it violates some essential human element attempting to explain everything away. If you can explain every miracle you deny yourself a degree of freedom. I figure I'll find out(or not) in due time. My own random thoughts on the matter, feel free to believe what you will.

How do you lose a degree of freedom when discovering that a miracle can occur and be repeatable through scientific observation? Also, isn't it mostly in human nature to be curious about the world around you? To want to know all there is to know? Being able to explain away phenomena seems essential to the human condition.

Moontanman, my mistake. It's been quite some time since I've read the bible and thought that the distance between the two seas was closer than 65 miles. Going off that, I was under the impression that it would have been possible for them to mistake one sea for the other. At the same time though, if he had been at the Dead Sea, although it would be impossible to walk on it barefoot or even in sandals, it would be plausible if he had some way to displace his weight and therefore his center of gravity... Just a thought...

On another note, in reference to Endy0816's comment on female bone marrow being converted to sperm... I'm sure there's an easier way for a woman to still be a virgin but become impregnated without divine intervention. However, for the sake of keeping this thread PG, I'll neglect to mention it here.

Aozora No Namida by Hitomi Takahashi

One example of something that's repeatable is Jesus walking on water. He could easily have been walking on the Dead Sea which has such a high concentration of salt that people float on top. Miracles are nothing more than phenomena that don't yet have a scientific explanation.

"Jesus being a special type of XX male"

i.e. a girl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x98cE4QCrlk

 

"Turning water into wine is perfectly allowed within the known laws of physics."

probably sort of true, but the gamma radiation from the transformations would have fried everybody present.

Not to mention I think they lacked sufficient technology to complete these conversions in BC or early AD

 

Why? How could you know?

 

 

I don't understand what you mean here about sceince has no claim to life. I agree that given our scientific understanding (which is based on an assumption of objective reality - including the objective reality of brains) that minds depend on physical brains. However in order to reach that conclusion I have had to accept that brains exist in an objective way. I have to assume that the things I experience are real. What if they're not? What if all I see (and that includes brains) is an illusion. If it's an illusion then all scientific knowledge is under question including the dependence of minds on brains. I happen to agree that minds like ours depend on brains based on scientific understanding but I cannot be certain of it without making the assumptions that brains exist. I can leave solipsism behind and step out into science but it's not science that leads me out of solipsism it's a philosophical assumption (and a bit of pragmatism perhaps)

.

To say this is also to assume that all scientific discovery is based on assumptions that what we've learned so far is true. But the way that we can be certain that we do have our physical selves and that those physical selves are human with human brains is by a simple experiment. If I were to wake up in the morning and before looking around I think to myself "Hmm, Aaron, I think I'm a duck" and then I look down and see that I now have wings and webbed feet... Well, then you might be right that the physical world is nothing more than an illusion. If, however, I think the same thing and I still remain human and repeat this same step every morning and other people do the same thing then the result would be that the physical world is just as real and from that we can know, not assume, that what our mind perceives is based on what science has already shown.

 

By 'scientifically' do you mean - use of scientific method or something else more akin to reason?

In this context, scientifically is used to mean reason rather than the structured steps of the scientific method. The scientific method is the tool by which we validate various phenomena that occur.

 

 

Villain is right. In solipsism all that can be truly known is our own mind (and by mind we mean only mental, conscious experiences). We infer objective reality through our conscious experience. We infer the brain as a part of objective reality because we can have a conscious experience of a brain (by seeing it when we dissect something).

 

Science assumes objective reality and is thus based on the assumption that solipsism is false. Therefore I don't think one can approach solipsism scientifically but rather the other way round: we approach science based on the assumption that solipsism is fase. That's my understanding of things anyway.

But even with solipsism, the mind has to come from something, it is not without form. And by the logic you state here, you are also saying that science has no claim to life either. For the same reasons that the mind cannot be measured, life is incapable of the same. However I disagree with this. Science has come to be able to define what is living and what is not. In the same manner that science has shown that life (as we currently know it) is incapable of existing outside a physical body, so to is it able to say that the mind is not present without the brain. Especially since if one were to completely remove the brain all vital signs would cease.

 

Pure science has no place making theories about the mind, at best you could say with a combination of science and philosophy.... destroy the brain.....

 

If you're going to get your head around idealism (and solipsism) then you will have to forget what you think you know about the mind/body problem and try and understand what is meant by 'outside the mind' (although it is probably better serve by saying inside the mind).

 

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with religion.

 

I think you're a little confused as to the order of things, philosophy lead to science and not the other way round.

 

It's not meant to stand on it's own, it is a comment about solipsism

What I meant by that was that science is not a set of beliefs but rather a process that seeks to further knowledge. Religion on the other hand is a set of beliefs without any scientific basis that seeks to spread it's individual view to others. So as I said before: Science is a process, not a religion. Anything can be approached scientifically and as such, so can solipsism. And actually, philosophy had it's roots in religious belief. So therefore, religion -> philosophy -> science. Philosophy really started getting underway when people wanted to move away from Homer, religion, and the pantheon. This lead the presocratics to start asking practical questions about the world and from there we get modern philosophy. So no, I'm not confused about the order of things.

Science is a process, not a religion. Therefore it is very much possible to approach Solipsism (or any philosophical thought) with a scientific mindset.

But how can you have a mind without your brain? The mind is trapped within the brain. Destroy the brain, and by all known theories within science, your mind is destroyed as well. As has already been stated before, the mind is an emergent property of the brain and it's chemical and electrical processes. Without those processes there, the mind ceases to be.

And sorry EdEarl, my comp won't bring up that article right now, so I'll have to wait to comment on that until I have a chance to read it.

It seems unrealistic to suppose that the entire observable universe was contained within the size of a proton. The reality is we don't know what happens at such high densities. String theory makes sense using a collision of higher dimensions to cause the big bang. Such a collision could happen within a region of any size at all, like sheets hanging parallel on clothes lines will make contact over a wide region when the wind blows.

I think this point was made in another thread... *Looks around at past postings* Okay, I can't find where it was mentioned, but I know this has come up before.

In the not so distant past it seemed unrealistic that a computer could be any smaller than a room. Before that, it seemed impossible for man to fly. And even before that, it seemed impossible that man would ever be able to harness the power of the god Zeus, yet we do every day. Also, since it does have a known size, the universe would have to be smaller than a proton in order to be considered infinitely small.

For imagery like this to be accurate, the universe would have been unmade immediately after it was "created". The force of the two sheets blowing together would then have caused them to separate again due to the force being equal and opposite. Even if it were not sheets, and instead two particles colliding, that universe that was created would have no basis anymore after the collision. That same force that caused the two particles to collide would then cause them to move in equal and opposite directions. The only way for this to happen would be to see that the energy that those two particles had is no gone. Not converted from kinetic into potential, but "destroyed" completely. It would no longer be able to exist in this dimension. And as such, those two particles wouldn't split so much as they would then fuse together. If they came apart, they would, just as the two sheets in the wind, unmake that universe.