PDA

View Full Version : Philisophy and the existance of "everything"



Pi Man
2003-Aug-23, 07:01 AM
This is somewhat of an extension of something I said on another thread.

Here, goes:
First, why does anything exist? Isn't null and void more perfect? (or at least more likely) However, if everything was null and void, there would still be information, namely that there is naught but null and void. So, null and void is not really null and void at all. The next thing you might say is that something exists, not nothing. That defeats the original purpose of posing that null and void is more perfect, because an incomplete set is imperfect (and improbable). So, one must turn to the next best thing, which is... drum roll please... everything! Everything exists! In other words, X exists where X satisfies the equasion, X=X. X is anything, because anything can equal itself. This may seem to contradict itself, because it states that there exists a state in which one can say that nothing else exists. However, all that statement is saying is that nothing else exists from his perspective. So, again by using philosophy, one can resolve this (non existent) contradiction.

Our universe is just a small part of that complete set. Everything exists, including us.

I just thought I'd throw that out, see what you guys think of it. I'm no expert on philosophy, but I think it's really interesting.

AK
2003-Aug-23, 07:25 AM
First, why does anything exist?

Some will tell you nothing does. We call them nihilists, and if you've ever seen The Big Lebowski, you know what a dangerous lot they can be. 8)

Pi Man
2003-Aug-23, 07:30 AM
Really? Well, the appearance that some things exist exists, so that has to be wrong...

2003-Aug-23, 05:57 PM
10:56 8/23
ah so you are here? I was wndering about a MATH
program i just noticed today while using DEBIAN
called "perldl" ? any news on that Math Program?

Pi Man
2003-Aug-23, 06:21 PM
So, does anybody see any holes in my theory?

One other thing. You may be wondering what I mean by "perfect". I just figured it out myself! :D What I really mean is "simplest". The existance of nothing is the simplest case, as is the existance of everything.

TriangleMan
2003-Aug-23, 06:48 PM
Ugh, I took deductive logic years and years ago so I'm not going to analyze it in that context, but otherwise . . .



First, why does anything exist? Isn't null and void more perfect? (or at least more likely)

Why do things have to be 'more perfect' and why is that 'more likely'? It is an odd assumption.


However, if everything was null and void, there would still be information, namely that there is naught but null and void. So, null and void is not really null and void at all.

Huh? We have a word for it therefore it must be something? I disagree. Here is an example:

What is north of the north pole? Is it not impossible for something to be north of the north pole? But if I make a word defining it (let's call it "northingness" - the impossibility of being north of the north pole), then by your logic there is something north of the north pole - northingness!

Sorry, null & void is really null & void. Just because we can create a definition of it doesn't mean that it is 'something'.

The rest of your theory becomes irrelevant because it is held up on the merits of the initial two assumptions above.

Pi Man
2003-Aug-23, 07:05 PM
Ugh, I took deductive logic years and years ago so I'm not going to analyze it in that context, but otherwise . . .

Why do things have to be 'more perfect' and why is that 'more likely'? It is an odd assumption.


Yeah. I kindof posted it before I had it completely worked out. What I really mean by more perfect is simpler. The existance of nothing existing is simpler. The existance of everything is also simpler, in that it gets rid of the need to explain why A exists but B doesn't.




However, if everything was null and void, there would still be information, namely that there is naught but null and void. So, null and void is not really null and void at all.

Huh? We have a word for it therefore it must be something? I disagree. Here is an example:

What is north of the north pole? Is it not impossible for something to be north of the north pole? But if I make a word defining it (let's call it "northingness" - the impossibility of being north of the north pole), then by your logic there is something north of the north pole - northingness!

Sorry, null & void is really null & void. Just because we can create a definition of it doesn't mean that it is 'something'.

But doesn't information have an existance aside from our using/knowing it? If nothing exists, there has to be the information that it doesn't exist. The information doesn't require us (or anything) to be able to exist, so it exists.


The rest of your theory becomes irrelevant because it is held up on the merits of the initial two assumptions above.

Also, I can replace premise with an equaly valid claim anyway. We see that things obviously exist, so the case that all is null and void obviously isn't true anyway. That said, the next best (simplest) thing is the existance of everything.

TriangleMan
2003-Aug-23, 07:21 PM
But doesn't information have an existance aside from our using/knowing it? If nothing exists, there has to be the information that it doesn't exist. The information doesn't require us (or anything) to be able to exist, so it exists.

Not really. The existance of nothing is a definition created by something that exists (us). Therefore if there was nothing then there wouldn't be anything to define the state as nothing, so the information of 'nothing' wouldn't exist.

Your logic appears circular. If I create a word for 'something that can't be defined' then its wrong because I've defined it as 'not defineable'?


That said, the next best (simplest) thing is the existance of everything.

Again, why do things have to be 'simplest'? Your arguments rest on that 'things have to be simplest' but you are not saying why it has to be so.

Pi Man
2003-Aug-23, 07:47 PM
Not really. The existance of nothing is a definition created by something that exists (us). Therefore if there was nothing then there wouldn't be anything to define the state as nothing, so the information of 'nothing' wouldn't exist.

Then information comes from what? Data and our definition of it? In that case, then the data still exists.


Your logic appears circular. If I create a word for 'something that can't be defined' then its wrong because I've defined it as 'not defineable'?

Information can be defined. But it doesn't require a definition to exist. (Or at least I don't think so)


Again, why do things have to be 'simplest'? Your arguments rest on that 'things have to be simplest' but you are not saying why it has to be so.

Well, do you have an explination for why this universe exists, and nothing else exists? Or why some things don't exist? If everything exists, it gets rid of the need to answer that question.

TriangleMan
2003-Aug-23, 08:03 PM
Then information comes from what? Data and our definition of it? In that case, then the data still exists.

The data exists only because something exists that percieves it as information. (Mind-bending sentence alert!) If nothing exists then nothing could perceive that there is nothing, therefore the information that there is nothing can't exist - because there is nothing.


Information can be defined. But it doesn't require a definition to exist. (Or at least I don't think so)

Then try it. What information exists that isn't defined? Isn't it impossible to do because as soon as you think you've succeeded you've defined it! Again look at my previous post on 'northingness'.


Again, why do things have to be 'simplest'? Your arguments rest on that 'things have to be simplest' but you are not saying why it has to be so.


Well, do you have an explination for why this universe exists, and nothing else exists? Or why some things don't exist? If everything exists, it gets rid of the need to answer that question.

Uh, Pi Man, you posted . . .


So, does anybody see any holes in my theory?

You asked, I responded. Whether or not I have an explanation is irrelevant - this thread is about your theory. You can't use that to duck answering "So why do things have to be 'simplest'?"

Gotta go, won't be back until Monday. Bye. 8)

wedgebert
2003-Aug-23, 08:45 PM
Information that is undefined but has words to describe them?

How about emotions? I know what it feels like to be happy, and you do you. However you cannot define being happy without using similar words that have no concrete definition. So therefore blue is used to descibe something you can't define.

Colors and smells are the same way. You can use the scientific definintion (blue is about 475 nm), but that doesn't tell you anything. You can't describe how blue LOOKS. Nor can you describe how something smells or tastes withouth using other flavors or smells to describe it.

Pi Man
2003-Aug-23, 10:35 PM
The data exists only because something exists that percieves it as information. (Mind-bending sentence alert!) If nothing exists then nothing could perceive that there is nothing, therefore the information that there is nothing can't exist - because there is nothing.

When you give information to somebody, all you are telling is the state of your brain then? All you are saying is, "I think that..."? There is no way for information to exist aside from someone to percieve/know it? I disagree. If you have to know it for it to be defined as information, what is it before it's known? Like the tree falling in the forest, what is the "fact" that it fell before it is known by anybody?


Then try it. What information exists that isn't defined? Isn't it impossible to do because as soon as you think you've succeeded you've defined it! Again look at my previous post on 'northingness'.

But it has to exist before you can define it, right? Or at least, you have to think about it before you can define it...


You asked, I responded. Whether or not I have an explanation is irrelevant - this thread is about your theory. You can't use that to duck answering "So why do things have to be 'simplest'?"

There's no reason why they have to be simplest. But if they aren't, you have to come up with many millions upon billions of theories to describe why what doesn't exist doesn't exist, and why what exists exists. And many millions upon billions of theories to describe why those theories are true, and so on. If only some things exist, then an infinite number of theories have to exist to explain what exists and what doesn't. (at least for things outside our universe)


Gotta go, won't be back until Monday. Bye. 8)

Ok. See you Monday!

And, I'm sorry if I come across as trying to be nasty or confrontational. I'm not trying to overturn what theories are already in place, just make sense of it.

And, I'm happy to have challenges. :D

Pi Man
2003-Aug-23, 10:41 PM
Information that is undefined but has words to describe them?

What? If it has words to describe it, then it (by definition :lol: ) has a definition! :D


How about emotions? I know what it feels like to be happy, and you do you. However you cannot define being happy without using similar words that have no concrete definition. So therefore blue is used to descibe something you can't define.

Why must it have a concrete definition? It doesn't need to have a concrete one, just a definition.


Colors and smells are the same way. You can use the scientific definintion (blue is about 475 nm), but that doesn't tell you anything. You can't describe how blue LOOKS. Nor can you describe how something smells or tastes withouth using other flavors or smells to describe it.

True. That kindof implies that there has to be a base concept that everything has to spring from, definition-wise. Everything has to be an "X" whatever "X" is.

DoctorDick
2003-Aug-24, 01:55 AM
You need two things! First, you need to understand mathematics

"Mathematics is the distilled essense of logic!" ... Richard Feynman 8)

and second, you need to understand my publication:

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/Contents.htm

If it is over your head, I am sorry :-?

Pi Man
2003-Aug-24, 07:31 AM
One more thing before I go to bed...



So, does anybody see any holes in my theory?

You asked, I responded. Whether or not I have an explanation is irrelevant - this thread is about your theory. You can't use that to duck answering "So why do things have to be 'simplest'?"

Yes, I asked and you responded. But, I don't think that you have really given me any holes in my theory. They can be explained.

And, DoctorDick... I haven't had a chance to read your publication, but I will next time I have a chance. Right now I have to get to bed! It's 2:30 am here! :D

kilopi
2003-Aug-25, 12:37 AM
So, does anybody see any holes in my theory?
Your theory is that everything exists, right? So, holes in your theory must exist. QED. :)

and second, you need to understand my publication:

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/Contents.htm

If it is over your head, I am sorry :-?
It's full of holes too.

For instance, in this section (http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/CHAP_V.htm), you say "We are extremely limited in any attempt to design valid experiments within the 4 dimensional model above as our ability to perceive 4 dimensional structures is thoroughly blocked by our subconscious," yet you have no proof of that. I'm not even convinced it is true.

Another example (http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/CHAP_I.htm): "it is the standard assumption of the scientific community that our perceptions are absolutely and incontrovertibly correct." That's clearly not true. Just the opposite in fact. But, we've discussed this before (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=52080&highlight=doctordick#52080). Or, at least, brought it up.

Pi Man
2003-Aug-25, 03:57 AM
So, does anybody see any holes in my theory?
Your theory is that everything exists, right? So, holes in your theory must exist. QED. :)

What doesn't exist in QED?

kilopi
2003-Aug-25, 10:59 AM
It's Latin, not physics! :)

snowcelt
2003-Aug-25, 11:49 AM
What is, is relivant. Tenson said the Tensor. the tension and the apprehension has now begun. I think that was Bester.
What is is but what we can see.
what is real is but what we apprehend.
what is real is what we expirence.
what we know is the s**t and p**s we wallow in each day.
What we want is the things we see in all whom we admire.
mom.

Pi Man
2003-Aug-25, 03:28 PM
So, does anybody see any holes in my theory?
Your theory is that everything exists, right? So, holes in your theory must exist. QED. :)


D'oh! I just got that. #-o

However, there exists a theory without holes, so who's to say that it's not my theory? Also, one thing I'd like to clear up before it comes up: In this theory, I must define "thing" so that it must exclude absences. So, you can't say, "Anything that can equal itself must exist. The absence of this universe=the absense of this universe, so this universe must be absent (or non-existent)."

Pi Man
2003-Aug-25, 03:46 PM
What is, is relivant. Tenson said the Tensor. the tension and the apprehension has now begun. I think that was Bester.
What is is but what we can see.
what is real is but what we apprehend.
what is real is what we expirence.
what we know is the s**t and p**s we wallow in each day.
What we want is the things we see in all whom we admire.
mom.

:o Your mom wrote that?????!!!!!! :o

:lol: :lol: :lol:

kilopi
2003-Aug-25, 04:00 PM
However, there exists a theory without holes
Why?

In this theory, I must define "thing" so that it must exclude absences. So, you can't say, "Anything that can equal itself must exist. The absence of this universe=the absense of this universe, so this universe must be absent (or non-existent)."
That doesn't help you out though. A hole in a theory is not a gap or a missing part--it is an error in logic, or a misunderstanding.

snowcelt
2003-Aug-25, 04:54 PM
Kilopi finishes the last by stating that there "---is an error in logic, or a misunderstanding.' Very generous. Mankind has been playing with this syllogism for a couple three thousand years. It is like Anselm's proof that there is a God. One of the predicates he uses is that God does exist. If one wishes to demonstrate that something is real, they have to take on the burden of proof. Other wise how can anything be passed on except through a cogent argument?

DJ
2003-Aug-25, 05:12 PM
Pi Man, you may be getting the flavor of why using language is so inexact, so imperfect. Most philosophers loathe language, especially English, because it requires so much clarification to even explain even the simplest notions.

I feel you are spending your cycles worrying about the exactness of the words, and it is the words themselves which have created your dilemma. You did not, for example, discover suddenly that "it" exists. You have discovered a reasoning dilemma of the language, and one that has been around for a *long* time.

I fully believe your theory boils down to the mathematical principle of the identity rule: X = X, or X = 1X.

Now, as for the set that X describes, you have to be very careful. To say that everything must exist because X = X does have some problems in practicality. But, to place a limit or boundary on what X could contain is not appropriate on a universal scale as yet fully observed.

An example of the practical problems of X = X, if I hear voices of Benjamin Franklin in my head telling me to fly a kite in a thunderstorm, well, I can say for sure that Ben Franklin never told me to do so. It might say for sure that I need some meds.

Pi Man
2003-Aug-25, 05:32 PM
I'm not applying this to this universe. It's an inter-universal principal. So, there exists a universe in which is a galaxy which contains a system, who's third planet is inhabited by sentient beings that call themselves, "humans". There also exists a universe in which is a galaxy which contains a system, who's third planet is inhabited by beings who call themselves "Michael Behe." :o

There are also (outside of our universe) things outside our universe that contain sentient beings, but cannot be defined as universes. That is the sense of the theory. Everything exists. I'm not saying that everything exists in this universe.

And, about the absences that I brought up, I wasn't trying to apply them to my theory, saying that an error is an absense of logic, I was trying to head the belief that this theory can make for the absense of something off at the pass.



However, there exists a theory without holes
Why?
Because everything exists.

Pi Man
2003-Aug-25, 05:39 PM
Pi Man, you may be getting the flavor of why using language is so inexact, so imperfect. Most philosophers loathe language, especially English, because it requires so much clarification to even explain even the simplest notions.

I know what you mean! I wish I could speak some latin, but then you guys couldn't understand the little of what I say that you do understand... Or something like that... #-o


I feel you are spending your cycles worrying about the exactness of the words, and it is the words themselves which have created your dilemma. You did not, for example, discover suddenly that "it" exists. You have discovered a reasoning dilemma of the language, and one that has been around for a *long* time.

Very true... Very true.

I'm almost contemplating defining new words to use instead of be verbs that shouldn't actually have tense.


I fully believe your theory boils down to the mathematical principle of the identity rule: X = X, or X = 1X.

Now, as for the set that X describes, you have to be very careful. To say that everything must exist because X = X does have some problems in practicality. But, to place a limit or boundary on what X could contain is not appropriate on a universal scale as yet fully observed.

I'm not really placing a boundary on what X can contain. I'm just defining X as anything. If it's a thing, it can't be the absense of a thing. An absense isn't a thing at all.


An example of the practical problems of X = X, if I hear voices of Benjamin Franklin in my head telling me to fly a kite in a thunderstorm, well, I can say for sure that Ben Franklin never told me to do so. It might say for sure that I need some meds.

But that doesn't exist in this universe. Certainly, if I'm correct, somebody, in some universe is hearing (pleas disregard all tense :D) voices telling him/her to fly a kite in a thunderstorm. But that situation doesn't exist in this universe.

kilopi
2003-Aug-25, 05:41 PM
However, there exists a theory without holes
Why?
Because everything exists.
Theories are no more things than holes are things. Even assuming that everything exists (which is a bit of a stretch, but I managed it), I don't see a reason why there has to be a universe in which the square root of two is rational, for instance.

Pi Man
2003-Aug-25, 05:52 PM
However, there exists a theory without holes
Why?
Because everything exists.
Theories are no more things than holes are things. Even assuming that everything exists (which is a bit of a stretch, but I managed it), I don't see a reason why there has to be a universe in which the square root of two is rational, for instance.

That wouldn't be really defined as a universe... Just a system of mathematics. In fact, there are systems in which any and all forms of math are completely nonsensical, or don't reder a usable, or predictable answer. There are systems that are ruled by logic, and binary sequences instead of numbers. So, there is a system in which the square root of 2 is rational.

snowcelt
2003-Aug-25, 06:10 PM
No! Existence is not completely defined! If you say a thing exists, all you say is what YOU say. All observing beings have their own definition about 'existence'. What makes the world go round is a montage of subjectivism and objectivism. The more cogent the more objective. Thought is like the speed of light. The faster you go (closer to the speed of light) the less likely you will gain any further speed. the more cogent you are the more objective you become. As you become more objective (therefor more aware of reality) the less likely you will gain true objective goals. Why? Because you are dealing with the objective world: Not the WWE Raw! westling world where all is possible (Subjective). Get it? The more you know the less you know!

kilopi
2003-Aug-25, 06:16 PM
That wouldn't be really defined as a universe... Just a system of mathematics. In fact, there are systems in which any and all forms of math are completely nonsensical, or don't reder a usable, or predictable answer.
I understand that.

There are systems that are ruled by logic, and binary sequences instead of numbers.
As opposed to our own??

So, there is a system in which the square root of 2 is rational.
Is that the same universe where a black cat is red? Would your theory be false in some universes, and true in others?

snowcelt
2003-Aug-25, 06:30 PM
No cat has eight tails. Every cat has one more tail than no cat. Therefore, every cat has nine tails.

OscartheGrouch
2003-Aug-25, 06:42 PM
I just thought I'd throw that out, see what you guys think of it. I'm no expert on philosophy, but I think it's really interesting.

Well sure, PM. I hold a degree in philosophy. Let's hear it.


Here, goes:
First, why does anything exist? Isn't null and void more perfect? (or at least more likely) However, if everything was null and void, there would still be information, namely that there is naught but null and void. So, null and void is not really null and void at all. The next thing you might say is that something exists, not nothing. That defeats the original purpose of posing that null and void is more perfect, because an incomplete set is imperfect (and improbable). So, one must turn to the next best thing, which is... drum roll please... everything! Everything exists! In other words, X exists where X satisfies the equasion, X=X. X is anything, because anything can equal itself. This may seem to contradict itself, because it states that there exists a state in which one can say that nothing else exists. However, all that statement is saying is that nothing else exists from his perspective. So, again by using philosophy, one can resolve this (non existent) contradiction.

Our universe is just a small part of that complete set. Everything exists, including us.



%-(

oy vey ... take your pick:

(a) Uh, could you repeat the question?
(b) The postulates invoke the phrase "null and void", implying that the matter sounds in contract law. I will be glad to research the case upon deposit of a US$500 retainer.
(c) OTOH, I haven't done my pro bono this year, so take this free advice (it is worth what you paid for it). To wax picky, "null and void" is usually applied to an intangible that has tangible evidence of its purported existence. Examples are a contract reduced to writing (contrary to popular belief, a "contract" need not be in writing unless some law specifically requires it) later held to be void ab initio (there never was any agreement and no one is bound) or voidable (one or more parties may void the agreement and not be bound by it, but it remains in force unless and until that happens), or a statute held to be unconstitutional. In such cases, the written evidence remains. A judgment voiding the contract does not also tear up the paper; unconstitutional statutes remain on the books unless the legislature repeals them, e.g., North Carolina General Statute 14-177: "If any person shall commit the crime against nature, with mankind or beast, he shall be punished as a Class I felon." Still there, although the US Supreme Court says you can't enforce it.
(d) The legislative history of that statute lists among others an edict of Henry VIII. Who was HE to talk!?
(e) Discussions like this tend to go off topic. Going back to the question of the existence of everything, some things are undefined, like division by zero, or nonexistent, like physicists who understand why you shouldn't divide by zero. I don't see how nonexistence is perfection. Sure, nonexistence entails the absence of error, but that's like saying poverty is cool because it relieves you of the onerous responsibility of deciding how to spend all that money.
(f) I think, therefore I am ... not doing anything productive. I must rectify that. TTFN.

pixelator
2003-Aug-25, 09:32 PM
...
Because everything exists.

This looks (in a twisted way :) ), like Plato's perfect form theory.

He theorized that for everthing that existed, there was a perfect version of it somewhere that embodies it's "thingness". So if you have a chair, somewhere there must be a perfect chair, with perfect "chairness"

So basically you are saying that whatever you can concieve of, really exists somewhere even if it might be in an alternate universe?

If there really are infinite universes this could be possible. :o

You need to read Robert Heinlein's "The Number of the Beast" - it follows this exact premise. pretty cool book. 8)

Pi Man
2003-Aug-26, 05:40 AM
...
Because everything exists.

This looks (in a twisted way :) ), like Plato's perfect form theory.

He theorized that for everthing that existed, there was a perfect version of it somewhere that embodies it's "thingness". So if you have a chair, somewhere there must be a perfect chair, with perfect "chairness"


Yeah... It's all coming back to me now... I remember that! Pretty cool idea. Really what he was defining was that for every object, there exists a class to which that object belongs (all cats have a few things in common, or they're not defined as a cat).


So basically you are saying that whatever you can concieve of, really exists somewhere even if it might be in an alternate universe?

No, what I'm saying that for every thing you can concieve of, there is a universe in which that idea is true.

Not that all "things" exist in universes. There has to exist something that is not bounded within a universe and cannot be defined as a universe.



If there really are infinite universes this could be possible. :o


Well, there exists a set of universes which is infinite, in which each one is "birthed" from aother, never being circular in causality. Our universe may or may not be one of those universes. And, there exists a set of things that are not bounded by the any of the previously mentioned universes, so those infinite universes we were discussing on the other thread are not the only universes out there, and they cannot contain everything that can equal itself.



You need to read Robert Heinlein's "The Number of the Beast" - it follows this exact premise. pretty cool book. 8)

kilopi
2003-Aug-26, 06:13 AM
No, what I'm saying that for every thing you can concieve of, there is a universe in which that idea is true.
Exactly. And conversely, there is a universe where it is false. And I claim, in this universe, that you're wrong. :)

TriangleMan
2003-Aug-26, 11:10 AM
Sorry I'm late, looks like I've missed a lot . . .

While I catch up on the various posts (including Oscar's legalese) a quick skim doesn't appear to explain the 'perfect' rationale. Your stated in a post that without simplicity we would need millions of theories as to why things existed. My response: So what? Maybe the universe is a complicated place. You want 'simplicity' and 'perfection'? Then wave your hand, say "God" and you're done - can't get much nicer & simpler than that, right? :wink:

So, to go back to the beginning:

a) Null and void is not perfect because the knowledge that it is null and void.
I still disagree on this but my rationale has been explained in previous posts.
b) Thus we must move to a state where the universe is more 'perfect', in that everything exists.
This brings us an odd Law of the Universe "it must be in its most perfect state" of course, the rationale for this appears to be that it must be so or else it would be annoyingly complicated. Also, not really sure why "everthing exists" is simpler than anything else. Its a subjective judgement you're making Pi Man, you need to demonstrate why the existance of everything is 'simpler'.

I'm starting to see why English does not lend itself well to philosophical arguments, as someone previously posted. . .

kilopi
2003-Aug-26, 11:45 AM
I'm starting to see why English does not lend itself well to philosophical arguments, as someone previously posted. . .
I think it was DJ, who said that *language* didn't lend itself well to philosophical arguments ("Most philosophers loathe language")

'Course, a philosophical argument without language is called "boxing."

Pi Man
2003-Aug-26, 05:48 PM
No, what I'm saying that for every thing you can concieve of, there is a universe in which that idea is true.
Exactly. And conversely, there is a universe where it is false. And I claim, in this universe, that you're wrong. :)
Sure. There is a universe where what you're concieving of doesn't exist. For instance, there is no Godzilla attacking Tokyo in this universe.

kilopi
2003-Aug-26, 06:56 PM
There is a universe where what you're concieving of doesn't exist. For instance, there is no Godzilla attacking Tokyo in this universe.
Must get kinda dull there, then. We have Mothra Makes Motzo on channel one tonight, with guest chef-host Queen Kong. The astronomer Karl Gauss is going to help them find Mars (he's the guy that Tonight Show host Kit Carson is always making fun of, saying "millyuns and millyuns")

Normandy6644
2003-Aug-27, 12:31 PM
No, what I'm saying that for every thing you can concieve of, there is a universe in which that idea is true.
Exactly. And conversely, there is a universe where it is false. And I claim, in this universe, that you're wrong. :)

First of all, I agree with Pi Man's theory (my theory too, actually, since a I wrote about it over a year ago) and I also believe it is a good justification for parallel universes. There are some slight modifications to it that I have, but the main idea, that EVERYTHING exists, is basically it. Kilopi, what you said is very very very interesting. Since every possibility must exist in some universe, there must be a universe in which this proposition must not hold. What this means (in my mind, thinking about it for a couple seconds, I'll do more thinking later) is that every universe where the proposition is true has an infinite number of tributary universes, whereas the universes in which the proposition doesn't hold are singlular. Obviously this doesn't change the total number of universes (infinity) but it does make things more interesting.....

pixelator
2003-Aug-27, 04:41 PM
First of all, I agree with Pi Man's theory (my theory too, actually, since a I wrote about it over a year ago) .

Well I think you both will have to bow down to the one who came up with this idea first.... :o











http://www.geocities.com/~shovalfilm/images/popeye-yam-spin.gif

Pi Man
2003-Aug-27, 05:24 PM
http://www.geocities.com/~shovalfilm/images/popeye-yam-spin.gif

Oy vey....

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Sory, pixelator... I have to roll my eyes at that some more...

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Woah! Getting dizzy....

[passes out]