Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (65013)	1/24/2015 9:10:45 AM
From: Solon	1 Recommendation Recommended By 2MAR$ Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

“ our universe *is described* by the size of the Higgs field which imparts gravity and time to what we perceive. If there is something outside of that it is not part of our universe and not within our reference of time.” This is just a definition we have created by agreeing to draw an area around a certain part of existence which we will call our "universe." I don’t see any disagreement there. But perhaps I should elaborate. When we say “universe”, this has always been understood to mean the Set of Everything. A universe could never logically be a part of anything else—at least not historically. It could never be contained within anything else. When you decide to posit any number of other “universes”, you re-define the concept which informed the word for centuries. I have no problem with that. But once again…we can now call the “set of everything” the multiverse--which means that we have conceptualised (read defined) the concept in a new way—but the concept is still a finite concept. And if you can posit anything outside of our universe, then there is nothing illogical about positing any unknown attributes to that “outside”. Nor is it illogical to posit anything beyond the set of universes, the set of multiverses, or the set of sets of sets…ad infinitum. But anything "outside" of that remains a cypher--until it is conceptualised with attributes and so defined. So when we study something, we conceptualize a defined area or field. “it is not part of our universe and not within our reference of time” Is only an opinion until it is changed to another opinion. And in any event, if it is not a part of our universe, then our universe may or may not be a part of “it”. We don’t do Science on the infinite. It is impossible to do Science on an undefined object. We could never confine, verify, process, or replicate our data. We can conceptualise (or some think we can) about the infinite, but as John says--we cannot even intellectually grasp it-never mind do Science on it. We can never identify the attributes of the infinite because basically we are talking about NOTHING…and we are simply unable to grasp NOTHING as a real thing without a SOMETHING to give it context and definition. We cannot grasp NOTHING as EVERYTHING because this is a fundamental contradiction in both our language and our mental wiring. Therefore, there has always been Something-some energy, some mass, some “idea”-or something else. Because both an infinite nothingness and a finite nothingness are beyond our capacity to internalise and comprehend. We cannot do Science on “Nothing”. We can never find it to place it under an instrument…and we can never know where in the Hell it went when we do. So, what existed before the “set of all things which exist”, and what will exist after the “set of all things which exist”, and what exists beyond or outside of the “set of all things which exist”…these are all questions which Science cannot answer—at least not while our brains are wired in our current set of dimensions. "An infinite nothingness" is not a scientific answer: it is merely a cry of pain.