Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 9:40 pm
Stars and galaxies are the universe? "The Galaxy is on Orion's Belt"?
Don't be silly. You know exactly what I mean.
The universe is composed of such things...and a whole lot more. And the universe is both expanding and entropic.
The universe, however, is the only thing of its sort, whereas the things it's composed of are not. (I'm using the word "universe" here in its original sense as a Latin loan-translation of the Greek "whole".)
That is how I have been using it, too...I mean "everything that exists in the material world," including the Earth, planets, stars, galaxies, and on and on. What I have said is true and scientifically verifiable, of the entire material universe, the whole thing.
And it was never my claim that they were self-aware now, was it!
Hmm...It seems it was.
You wrote:
"I have thought carefully about it, and certainly would never be so thoughtless as to preclude rabbits from existing to themselves."
If that's not a claim that you are inclined to think rabbits are self-aware, then what is it?
Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 9:40 pm
Yes, and I'm saying heat death, a.k.a. the Big Chill or Freeze, will never be complete. In that sense, the Big Bang is the "beginning" that never began, even now; and the Big Chill is the "ending" that will never end, even now. Even now, the universe is "banging"—expanding—and "chilling"—being entropized. It will never stop doing either.
Even after you correct him, IC will continue lying that there is scientific evidence for the actual beginning and end of the universe. It's a part of his game.
Self-Lightening wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 9:40 pm
Yes, and I'm saying heat death, a.k.a. the Big Chill or Freeze, will never be complete. In that sense, the Big Bang is the "beginning" that never began, even now; and the Big Chill is the "ending" that will never end, even now. Even now, the universe is "banging"—expanding—and "chilling"—being entropized. It will never stop doing either.
Even after you correct him, IC will continue lying that there is scientific evidence for the actual beginning and end of the universe. It's a part of his game.
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:41 am
Even after you correct him, IC will continue lying that there is scientific evidence for the actual beginning and end of the universe. It's a part of his game.
Stop lying, nowhere does a low-entropy state prove an actual beginning.
Hmmm...not logical. Of course it does. No matter how far back you try to extend the time line -- that is, even if you make the entropy state a billion times slower than it actually is, it still proves the origin point. All it does is imply it would be longer ago...not that it wouldn't be just as certain as it is now.
Stop lying, nowhere does a low-entropy state prove an actual beginning.
Hmmm...not logical. Of course it does. No matter how far back you try to extend the time line -- that is, even if you make the entropy state a billion times slower than it actually is, it still proves the origin point. All it does is imply it would be longer ago...not that it wouldn't be just as certain as it is now.
You're mistaken again.
No it doesn't, it could go on forever. Nor do we know of the "entire" universe, just its observable part. Your Newtonian conception of a linear timeline may also not be relevant.
Do we have scientific evidence of an actual beginning? Of course not. This is basic stuff which you know too.
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 1:24 pm
Stop lying, nowhere does a low-entropy state prove an actual beginning.
Hmmm...not logical. Of course it does. No matter how far back you try to extend the time line -- that is, even if you make the entropy state a billion times slower than it actually is, it still proves the origin point. All it does is imply it would be longer ago...not that it wouldn't be just as certain as it is now.
You're mistaken again.
No it doesn't, it could go on forever.
Yes, it does. Obviously. Beyond question. If you can't do even basic logic, I don't think you're well-positioned to be arguing this.
Do we have scientific evidence of an actual beginning?
Yes. Click the links. Think. You'll get it.
Or maybe you won't...I don't know...it will depend on your personal mental capacity. But we'll see, won't we?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 1:44 pm
Hmmm...not logical. Of course it does. No matter how far back you try to extend the time line -- that is, even if you make the entropy state a billion times slower than it actually is, it still proves the origin point. All it does is imply it would be longer ago...not that it wouldn't be just as certain as it is now.
You're mistaken again.
No it doesn't, it could go on forever.
Yes, it does. Obviously. Beyond question. If you can't do even basic logic, I don't think you're well-positioned to be arguing this.
Do we have scientific evidence of an actual beginning?
Yes. Click the links. Think. You'll get it.
Or maybe you won't...I don't know...it will depend on your personal mental capacity. But we'll see, won't we?
Beginnings and endings aren't part of basic logic - so much for mental capacity.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 1:53 pm
Yes, it does. Obviously. Beyond question. If you can't do even basic logic, I don't think you're well-positioned to be arguing this.
Yes. Click the links. Think. You'll get it.
Or maybe you won't...I don't know...it will depend on your personal mental capacity. But we'll see, won't we?
Beginnings and endings aren't part of basic logic - so much for mental capacity.
Oy vey.
Okay, now I know whether or not you can do basic logic. Clearly not.
I'm not going to explain it to you. This isn't kindergarten.
You're the one who can't do basic logic, no wonder you're pulling out.
Maybe constructing a valid and sound logical argument for why the universe must necessarily be finite and typing it out step by step will help? Otherwise, one isn't really using logic.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 2:14 pm
Maybe constructing a valid and sound logical argument for why the universe must necessarily be finite and typing it out step by step will help? Otherwise, one isn't really using logic.
Nah, he only needs the finite universe, because then he can make the (completely accidental) discovery that the universe needs a first cause, and that could only mean God.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 2:14 pm
Maybe constructing a valid and sound logical argument for why the universe must necessarily be finite and typing it out step by step will help? Otherwise, one isn't really using logic.
Gary, Gary, Gary....
Before you speak, go back and read. I've already laid out the logic, and I've provided the references to the scientific evidence. If you jump into the middle of a conversation, and don't read what's been said, you're not going to know that, and you're going to say silly things like you just said.
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 2:06 pm
You're the one who can't do basic logic, no wonder you're pulling out.
Not pulling out.
But if you're being a troll, there's no point.
And if you're not being a troll, then you don't understand even the most rudimentary facts and logic.
Take your pick.
Either way, there's no a whole lot more that can be said.
You could have said something substantial about the beginning of the universe here
You clearly wouldn't understand it, since I already did, and you couldn't get it.
There's a basic IQ bar. Unless you can do basic logic, you're not going to get any scientific argument at all. Right now, you're either pretending to be incapable, or actually incapable: neither is a strategy I can beat.
"The Galaxy is on Orion's Belt"?
