studiot Posted May 28, 2018 Posted May 28, 2018 Gabriel's horn stretches to infinity so no we couldn't make one. But did you notice that one of the see also references at the end was The shape of the Universe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe It has some pictures to show some of the shapes I was referring to. 40 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said: Some of us never stopped wondering! Sorry to slightly derail the thread. This discussion is a sight more sensible than the original.
Scott of the Antares Posted May 28, 2018 Posted May 28, 2018 Hey thanks for the info on the shape of the universe Studiot:) some interesting reading right there.
Relinquish Posted May 28, 2018 Author Posted May 28, 2018 (edited) I know this answer will considered to be far too vague, but it seems to me that at all perceivable scales of universe, what we see is 'ever-changing structured asymmetry'. Why should we not expect the overall finite shape of the universe to be the same? It is happening in the 'ever-changeless structureless symmetry' that is infinite space. Edited May 28, 2018 by Relinquish
Strange Posted May 28, 2018 Posted May 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, Relinquish said: it seems to me that at all perceivable scales of universe, what we see is 'ever-changing structured asymmetry At large scales, the universe becomes increasingly homogeneous and isotropic. Or, to put it another way: no. 2 minutes ago, Relinquish said: Why should we not expect the overall shape of the universe to be the same? So is "ever-changing structured asymmetry" a shape? How many sides does it have? Will you please stop making stuff up and posting contradictory nonsense. How about answering some questions? Like: How do you know the universe has a shape? Please provide the evidence for this. How do you know what shape the universe is? Please provide the evidence for this. How do you know the universe is finite? Please provide the evidence for this.
Relinquish Posted May 28, 2018 Author Posted May 28, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Strange said: At large scales, the universe becomes increasingly homogeneous and isotropic. Or, to put it another way: no. So is "ever-changing structured asymmetry" a shape? How many sides does it have? Will you please stop making stuff up and posting contradictory nonsense. How about answering some questions? Like: How do you know the universe has a shape? Please provide the evidence for this. How do you know what shape the universe is? Please provide the evidence for this. How do you know the universe is finite? Please provide the evidence for this. I would suggest that homogeneity being observed by us at sufficiently large scales is entirely dependent upon the limitation of our own vantage point. Scales are only 'larger' or 'smaller' relative to the observer. My assertion that the universe has a shape (and is therefore finite) is based upon the existence of surfaces, which could logically not exist in a shapeless universe. Look at all the un-occupied space that surrounds all of these surfaces. My assertion that the universe has the overall shape of an 'ever-changing structured asymmetry' is based upon the fact that this is what is being experienced at all times. Edited May 29, 2018 by Relinquish -1
Moontanman Posted May 29, 2018 Posted May 29, 2018 58 minutes ago, Relinquish said: I would suggest that homogeneity being observed by us at sufficiently large scales is entirely dependent upon the limitation of our own vantage point. Scales are only 'larger' or 'smaller' relative to the observer. My assertion that the universe has a shape (and is therefore finite) is based upon the existence of surfaces, which could logically not exist in a shapeless universe. Look at all the un-occupied space that surrounds all of these surfaces. My assertion that the universe has the overall shape of an 'ever-changing structured asymmetry' is based upon the fact that this is what is being experienced at all times. A citation is required to make these assertions, what you suggest is nothing but opinion. Please give us some evidence that "this is what is being experienced" I do not experience it and I need evidence before I can evaluate your assertions...
Relinquish Posted May 29, 2018 Author Posted May 29, 2018 2 minutes ago, Moontanman said: A citation is required to make these assertions, what you suggest is nothing but opinion. Please give us some evidence that "this is what is being experienced" I do not experience it and I need evidence before I can evaluate your assertions... Do you ever experience 'changelessness'? I speculate that you don't. Do you ever experience 'structurelessness'? I speculate that you don't. Do you ever experience absolute symmetry? I speculate that you don't. Does anyone with properly working senses ever experience any of these three? I speculate that they don't. -3
Moontanman Posted May 29, 2018 Posted May 29, 2018 2 minutes ago, Relinquish said: Do you ever experience 'changelessness'? I speculate that you don't. Do you ever experience 'structurelessness'? I speculate that you don't. Do you ever experience absolute symmetry? I speculate that you don't. Does anyone with properly working senses ever experience any of these three? I speculate that they don't. Even more reason you must provide evidence, we can claim all sorts of things only what we can show is important..
Relinquish Posted May 29, 2018 Author Posted May 29, 2018 2 minutes ago, Moontanman said: Even more reason you must provide evidence, we can claim all sorts of things only what we can show is important.. So the speculations in my last post are false?
Moontanman Posted May 29, 2018 Posted May 29, 2018 Just now, Relinquish said: So the speculations in my last post are false? If you cannot show it then you do not know it. Only what you can provide evidence for is meaningful. I can claim to have a talking dog, if I did would just accept it?
Strange Posted May 29, 2018 Posted May 29, 2018 7 hours ago, Relinquish said: I would suggest that homogeneity being observed by us at sufficiently large scales is entirely dependent upon the limitation of our own vantage point. Scales are only 'larger' or 'smaller' relative to the observer. Well, if you are just going to dismiss the evidence because it disagrees with you beliefs, then maybe a science forum isn't really the best place for you. 7 hours ago, Relinquish said: My assertion that the universe has a shape (and is therefore finite) is based upon the existence of surfaces, which could logically not exist in a shapeless universe. You assert this with no evidence or logical argument. Let me provide an equally detailed refutation of your argument: you are wrong. OK? 7 hours ago, Relinquish said: My assertion that the universe has the overall shape of an 'ever-changing structured asymmetry' is based upon the fact that this is what is being experienced at all times. Please explain how "ever-changing structured asymmetry" is a shape? Also, you appear to be using "shape" in. a non-standard way. Perhaps you could define what you mean by the word "shape"? And what evidence do you have that anyone has experienced "ever-changing structured asymmetry"? Basically, refusing to answer questions and simply repeating your personal beliefs is not a very constructive way to hold a discussion.
Relinquish Posted May 29, 2018 Author Posted May 29, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Strange said: Well, if you are just going to dismiss the evidence because it disagrees with you beliefs, then maybe a science forum isn't really the best place for you. You assert this with no evidence or logical argument. Let me provide an equally detailed refutation of your argument: you are wrong. OK? Please explain how "ever-changing structured asymmetry" is a shape? Also, you appear to be using "shape" in. a non-standard way. Perhaps you could define what you mean by the word "shape"? And what evidence do you have that anyone has experienced "ever-changing structured asymmetry"? Basically, refusing to answer questions and simply repeating your personal beliefs is not a very constructive way to hold a discussion. Fair enough. I guess I am using the word 'shape' to mean 'specific objective nature'. The universe has a specific objective nature, in that it IS a certain way and ISN'T any other way. It seems to me that that most fundamental philosophical question is "why is there something rather than nothing?". It seems reasonable enough to answer that question by saying that there simply CAN'T be nothing, and that something is inevitable. Fine. But why is there THIS something rather than the potentially infinite amount of other conceivable somethings? Surely the something that exists is being constrained (and therefore caused) to be the way that it is. What could be the constraining cause of the specific objective nature of this apparently ultimate something that we call the universe? Wouldn't this constraining cause have to be, itself, absolutely unconstrained and causeless (and therefore, completely non-specific)? Edited May 29, 2018 by Relinquish
studiot Posted May 29, 2018 Posted May 29, 2018 1 hour ago, Relinquish said: Surely the something that exists is being constrained (and therefore caused) to be the way that it is. What could be the constraining cause of the specific objective nature of this apparently ultimate something that we call the universe? Well this is actually a question that can be sensibly discussed. Unfortunately you have also said that whatever exists is also constantly changing. How are these two apparantly opposing statements compatible?
Bender Posted May 29, 2018 Posted May 29, 2018 13 hours ago, Relinquish said: But why is there THIS something rather than the potentially infinite amount of other conceivable somethings? Who says these other conceivable somethings don't exist?
Relinquish Posted May 30, 2018 Author Posted May 30, 2018 2 hours ago, Bender said: Who says these other conceivable somethings don't exist? I flirted with that idea for a time, but eventually came to see it as one of the biggest cop-outs in the history of science and philosophy. Just my interpretation. ☺ -1
YaDinghus Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 On 5/29/2018 at 2:49 AM, Moontanman said: If you cannot show it then you do not know it. Only what you can provide evidence for is meaningful. I can claim to have a talking dog, if I did would just accept it? Wait, does this dog have a russian accent? Is he telekinetic and telepathic? Does he wear a CCCP space suit for dogs? On 5/29/2018 at 2:40 AM, Relinquish said: Does anyone with properly working senses ever experience any of these three? I speculate that they don't. I'm pretty sure that the Universe evolves (i.e. isn't unchanging), has a structure, which isn't perfectly symmertical. But in the context of whatever you claim, it doesn't mean anything, because you sound like my cat on drugs.
Scott of the Antares Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 On 29/05/2018 at 10:38 AM, studiot said: Unfortunately you have also said that whatever exists is also constantly changing. How are these two apparantly opposing statements compatible? Sorry for being a thicko but how is that an opposing statement? Is it not the case that everything in the universe is in constant flux, so everything is constantly changing? Whether that is position or composition, it is always changing. So therefore is it not reasonable to say that A; something exists, & B; it is constantly changing/moving? Cheers:)
studiot Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 (edited) Scott, I hope you realise this comment was not addressed at you, but at the OP, who keeps avoiding my question. How can something that is shapeless (as in the title of this thread) be constantly changing its shape? Edited May 30, 2018 by studiot 1
Scott of the Antares Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 1 hour ago, studiot said: Scott, I hope you realise this comment was not addressed at you, but at the OP, who keeps avoiding my question. How can something that is shapeless (as in the title of this thread) be constantly changing its shape? Thanks Studiot, I need to pay more attention to the fine details of the threads on these boards! Your last sentence makes sense:) Good job I put in my disclaimer about me being a thicko!
Relinquish Posted May 30, 2018 Author Posted May 30, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, studiot said: Scott, I hope you realise this comment was not addressed at you, but at the OP, who keeps avoiding my question. How can something that is shapeless (as in the title of this thread) be constantly changing its shape? What is constantly changing it's shape is the radiance OF the radiant shapelessness. Think of the shapelessness as a 'ground', and the shape as a 'growth'. The ground is ever-changeless, and the growth is ever-changing. Edited May 30, 2018 by Relinquish
studiot Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Relinquish said: What is constantly changing it's shape is the radiance OF the radiant shapelessness. Think of the shapelessness as a 'ground', and the shape as a 'growth'. The ground is ever-changeless, and the growth is ever-changing. 2
Moontanman Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 4 hours ago, YaDinghus said: Wait, does this dog have a russian accent? Is he telekinetic and telepathic? Does he wear a CCCP space suit for dogs? No, not at all he has an irish accent, he can fly but his power comes from moon light and he always wears a fur coat... 1 hour ago, Relinquish said: What is constantly changing it's shape is the radiance OF the radiant shapelessness. Think of the shapelessness as a 'ground', and the shape as a 'growth'. The ground is ever-changeless, and the growth is ever-changing. So you are not going to give us anything but baseless assertions? anyone else smell troll? 2
YaDinghus Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 26 minutes ago, Moontanman said: 4 hours ago, YaDinghus said: Wait, does this dog have a russian accent? Is he telekinetic and telepathic? Does he wear a CCCP space suit for dogs? No, not at all he has an irish accent, he can fly but his power comes from moon light and he always wears a fur coat... Moonlight or moonshine? In case it's the latter, I've got a fresh batch and I'd really like to see a talking flying irish dog in a fur coat. Ok, maybe I'll get that if I just drink my moonshine...
Moontanman Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, YaDinghus said: Moonlight or moonshine? In case it's the latter, I've got a fresh batch and I'd really like to see a talking flying irish dog in a fur coat. Ok, maybe I'll get that if I just drink my moonshine... Moonshine, I misspoke He only talks and flys when i am flying as well.. 1
YaDinghus Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, Moontanman said: Moonshine, I misspoke He only talks and flys when i am flying as well.. 200 proof upvoteworthy
Recommended Posts