Thales Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 Ignorance is not so much a lack of knowledge as it is an attitude. To ignore something, you are aware of its existance but you choose to not understand it. In many respects Mr. MX, you are ignorant. Ignorant to concepts such as manners, and ignorant of the extent (or lack there of) of your intellect. By the way choosing to abuse drugs impresses no one here. It is not something to be proud of.
AtomicMX Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 Ignorance is not so much a lack of knowledge as it is an attitude. To ignore something, you are aware of its existance but you choose to not understand it. In many respects Mr. MX, you are ignorant. Ignorant to concepts such as manners, and ignorant of the extent (or lack there of) of your intellect. By the way choosing to abuse drugs impresses no one here. It is not something to be proud of. I do not drink, i do not even smoke for your information. Ignorance is not so much a lack of knowledge There is a definitions, what you or your people belive i do not care. read the dictionary more often. And i do not know if i am ignorant but i can resolve physical equations, and understand the definitions and theories. About multiuniverse (dreamlord) please search (in a nice way) for discreet math... so you'll understand why cannot be more than one universe. I guess that's just a matter of opinion. Well you should post your pic, or send it to my email so i can give you mine. or such as me, use it as avatar. For the ones who didn't know, the one of the pic its me.
AtomicMX Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 You pushed me too. Let's just drop the subject. I believe in the multiverse theory, you don't, just let it go. Its not that easy for me. I mean, i can except multiple galaxies, multiple sistems like matter and antimatter, in for definitions, everything is a universe. its a definitions. or well. could you give me your definition of multiverse. your definition. i will explain you based on that. why is that still a universe. and we'll be all happy i belive. write something such as Multivers : yada yada yada.... please. thanks in advance.
123rock Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 There can be more than one universe, there's just no possible physical contact between ours and any other, although it might be possible for two others to connect where x doesn't equal x (don't quote me here, because there's no proof of x=x, it's just an assumption from observation of physical science of THIS universe).
Thales Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 There are more interesting reads than the dictionary, say, the rest of this thread for instance. Sayo and I already thrashed out the what is a universe question previously. Oh and MX, please don't quote me out of context as the last five words of that sentence were indeed its crux.
AtomicMX Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 There can be more than one universe, there's just no possible physical contact between ours and any other, although it might be possible for two others to connectwhere x doesn't equal x (don't quote me here, because there's no proof of x=x, it's just an assumption from observation of physical science of THIS universe). I agreed to sayonara that the laws maybe cannot be the same, but i do not agree in multiuniverse.. BECAUSE in case that those exist there would be part of the same universe. that why you should all read some discreet math.
AtomicMX Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 There can be more than one universe, there's just no possible physical contact between ours and any other, although it might be possible for two others to connectwhere x doesn't equal x (don't quote me here, because there's no proof of x=x, it's just an assumption from observation of physical science of THIS universe). ... can you explain me how can 2 universes exist.... if universe is everything.
AtomicMX Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 yourdadonapogos, you are right, a suitible definition of the universe is;everything. However there could be other everythings Mhhh how instresting. How can there be more than everything. You can find more things.... and those things would be part of the everything.
AtomicMX Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 Whether or not {our universe + foreign universe} constitutes a closed system can only be an assumption, so you can't really apply any principles where boolean knowledge of that state is required unless you do so with the appropriate caveats or a suggestion for the opposite case. He is talking about the laws, not multiuniverse. Though i disagree with Sayonara in multiuniverse he has a point here. Even then I'm not 100% convinced. I mean (this is nothing to do with wormholes btw), what happens when a universe ends? In the closed multiverse model all the energy it ever contained has to be preserved somehow. It would be preserved because it would be 1 universe.
AtomicMX Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 Not a big deal, you just don't know them. .... you still do not seem to understand.
DreamLord Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 You just can't let this go can you? Scientists can have conflicting theories you know. Apperently that isn't OK with you though, is it? Anyway just look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse The multiverse theory may not be likely, but there is the possibility for it. That is all I am saying.
Sayonara Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 Mhhh how instresting. How can there be more than everything. You can find more things.... and those things would be part of the everything. If we cannot interact with, observe or otherwise detect something then it may as well not exist to us. This is one way we could consider another universe to be exempt from our idea of what "everything" actually is. Or of course you could simply rename the multiverse as the universe, and call our particular matter/energy/space/force collection "the cosmos" instead. Whichever. The point was that we were considering two separate MESF collections that do not usually interact. Getting hung up on the name for it is a bit pointless.
AtomicMX Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 i understand what you are saying.. but there are definitons that we must follow.. just that.. even if we do not have contact with them if they exist, they are part of the universe. remmember that universe is all that exist. i do am not saying that there cannot be more, but multiverse definiton is wrong. This was because' date=' at the time, the definition of the word 'universe' was "All that there is" and etymologically one cannot have "Alls that there is". 'Uni' means one, and 'multi' means many, so this meaning allowed for many multiverses.[/quote'] etymologically one cannot have "Alls that there is" This is a big mistake from wikipedia. Is a definiton. That says everything that does exist.
DreamLord Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 The point was that we were considering two separate MESF collections that do not usually interact. Getting hung up on the name for it is a bit pointless. I think that about says it all. Don't get hung up on the names of these things.
AtomicMX Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 This is one way we could consider another universe to be exempt from our idea of what "everything" actually is. We cant because that would exist either, and universe is for everthing that does exist. Or of course you could simply rename the multiverse as the universe, and call our particular matter/energy/space/force collection "the cosmos" instead. I would perfectly agree with this. Whichever. The point was that we were considering two separate MESF collections that do not usually interact. Getting hung up on the name for it is a bit pointless. The thing is that we should get confused, as it is happening. And well... how much factible is to talk about god, another Set of physics laws energy and matter that we do not know and things we cant see, we are not researching on, and we do not know even know....
DreamLord Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 DreamLord... what about your pic? I have no plans of putting my picture on the web. I like my avatar fine the way it is.
Sayonara Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 We cant because that would exist either, and universe is for everthing that does exist. Well, my point was that if we are unaware of it and cannot interact with it, then for all intents and purposes it does not exist to us, so there's no particular reason it include it in our definition of "everything that exists".
Sayonara Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 I have no plans of putting my picture on the web. I like my avatar fine the way it is. DreamLord has a boyyyyyfriend DreamLord has a boyyyyyfriend
DreamLord Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 Well, my point was that if we are unaware of it and cannot interact with it, then for all intents and purposes it does not[/u'] exist to us, so there's no particular reason it include it in our definition of "everything that exists". Yes I agree. If there is no possible way we could interact with this other universe (or whatever you want to call it) there is no point including it in our deffinition of "everything that exists". After all, if it cannot effect us in any way what so ever, there is no point in us even aknowledging it's existance. It is there, but we never even know about it. DreamLord has a boyyyyyfriend DreamLord has a boyyyyyfriend No more talk of my picture. And yes, Dreamlord may have a boyfriend, but it's certainly not Atomic.
ydoaPs Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 Yes I agree. If there is no possible way we could interact with this other universe (or whatever you want to call it) there is no point including it in our deffinition of "everything that exists". After all' date=' if it cannot effect us in any way what so ever, there is no point in us even aknowledging it's existance. It is there, but we never even know about it. No more talk of my picture. And yes, Dreamlord may have a boyfriend, but it's certainly not Atomic.[/quote'] so, other universes do not exist. :Þ she lied. she is waiting for me to ask her out.
DreamLord Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 It's not that they don't exist. It's just that they couldn't effect us. So I suppose they wouldn't be included in our own deffinition of "everything". But they would still exist. Also we may never know if another universe exists, but it is still a possibility. I believe in the multiverse theory, but I also except the possibility that there may just be our one universe. Yeah... I lied about it all:rolleyes:
Sayonara Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 Well, they may exist, but not necessarily to us. Oh god. We're moving on from defining "everything" to defining "exists". Women and children first.
ydoaPs Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 which is worse, defining "time", "everything", or "exists"?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now