Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nowhere357 · 07-30-2003, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Albert Cipriani
If you feel comfortable with this paradox, continue to believe that the mere convention we call "time" is actually a metaphysical reality. And continue to apply its intellectual bandaids of "past," "present," and "future" to the open wound that is creation. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Time has no meaning beyond the measurement of cyclical physical change.

And the universe is more like a blossoming flower than an open wound. What is it about Catholicism that tries to make everything feel so bad?

excreationist · 07-31-2003, 09:10 AM

Thought I don't really know much about MWI, I think if time was continuous, there would be huge problems with MWI (my favourite quantum mechanics interpretation)... if time is discrete, the branchings off of alternate histories would be limited, though near infinite. If time is continuous, there would be an infinite amount of branching because of the infinite density - so within one second of time (even just after the big bang, near the root of the branches), there'd be an infinite number of parallel universes.

jpbrooks · 07-31-2003, 09:38 AM

Sorry for the delay in posting, but I now only have computer access at home.

Quote:

Originally posted by Quantum Ninja

Quote:

Originally posted by jpbrooks
Good point and good question!
Space is continuous because the lengths, widths, and depths/heights can have irrational (for example, the length of a diagonal of a square whose sides have an integral length) as well as rational numerical values.

As scumble pointed out already, how do you know geometry is 100% accurate description of reality? Space could be "pixelated", like the monitor on which you're reading this.

True! We can't know with 100% certainty that geometry provides an accurate "picture" of the real world. But we have never (to my knowledge) had to alter geometry in such a way as to allow for a "pixelated" space=time "structure" when we apply it to real world situations.
Furthermore, there is (AFAIK) no conclusive physical evidence that space-time is a "pixelated" "structure" rather than a continuum. I would certainly be interested in seeing such evidence when it becomes available.

Quote:

Quote:

The cardinality of points in space is thus equal to that of a "continuum".

That's a good point. I never really thought about comparing the cardinality of space and time, but I think you're right. But I still don't think there's any solid proof that either of them is continous or discrete at this point. [/B]

I agree, but again, the successes of geometry (and the sciences that make use of it) seem to give us no reason to believe that space-time is not a continuum.

excreationist · 07-31-2003, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jpbrooks
.....the successes of geometry (and the sciences that make use of it) seem to give us no reason to believe that space-time is not a continuum.

From PhysLink.com:

Quote:

The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the �quantum of length�, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning.

And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10^-35 m or about 10^-20 times the size of a proton.

The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the �quantum of time�, the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10^-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10^-43 seconds.

It doesn't say whether space is therefore in a square/cubic pixelated form... BTW, a honeycomb layout (with hexagons) are an equal distance from adjacent cells. That's 2-D though, but there could be a 3-D form of that... (like how you can stack spheres to make a triangular pyramid.)

Albert Cipriani · 07-31-2003, 10:03 PM

Nowhere asks:

Quote:

What is it about Catholicism that tries to make everything feel so bad?

What is it about secular humanism that tries so hard to make everything nice? Pasting happy face Band-Aids over this blighted world is not realistic. Whereas Catholicism, unlike any other world view, sees things as they are � corrupted.

Let me count the ways:
1) animals live off death
2) life is mortal
3) pleasure is fleeting while pain is chronic
4) love is irrational while eugenics is logical
5) construction is more difficult to accomplish than destruction
6) sense is rarer than nonsense
7) the curse of work and the worse fate of being unemployed
8) labor pains and thistles

The list goes on but I won�t. I�ll collect my days wages in what Shakespeare called the �counterfeit death� of sleep. Goodnight, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Nowhere357 · 07-31-2003, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Let me count the ways:

Life's a bitch and then we die.

All that's left is the way we live. Seek out and nurture the good - this is the only purpose to reality that I can see.

As you describe Catholicism, you support my view that it is a sick theology which damages minds. I don't mean to be rude, sorry. Reality is not "corrupted". Reality just "is". Only our view of it can be "corrupted". It's like you see a toilet and say "Look! Your house is full of shit!". Not a healthy outlook, and not useful at all.

Witt · 08-01-2003, 10:38 AM

What is it about secular humanism that tries so hard to make everything nice? Pasting happy face Band-Aids over this blighted world is not realistic. Whereas Catholicism, unlike any other world view, sees things as they are � corrupted.

Let me count the ways:
1) animals live off death
2) life is mortal
3) pleasure is fleeting while pain is chronic
4) love is irrational while eugenics is logical
5) construction is more difficult to accomplish than destruction
6) sense is rarer than nonsense
7) the curse of work and the worse fate of being unemployed
8) labor pains and thistles
------------------------------------

Your nonsense is appalling.
Why is it that you do not understand that, this is an infidel forum?
Catholicism is the least likely to get respect here!!

That creatures eat other creatures "alive" is a fact of the world, and no amount of guilt will change that.

Your evident lack of understanding is prevalent within the "folly" of theism, and especially catholicism.

Please go preach elsewhere, you will not be heard here, ..by deliberate choice!

If you want to argue logically about your beliefs, ..lets do it!

I enjoy arguing with fundies and catholics because, .. they are so easy to beat.

With anticipation,

Witt

jfryejr · 08-01-2003, 10:48 AM

I think the problem with trying to imagine time as a continuum is related to Zeno's Paradox of how it's impossible to ever walk anywhere because you must first cross half of the distance from point x to point y. Then you must cross half of that distance, then half of that distance, ad infinitum. (I realize this is solvable with a Riemann sum.)

I think the concept of something being continuous encounters a problem when one considers the problem of infinite divisibility. At which point does something stop being continuous so that it can move on to the next discreet step? I think most of the known particles occupying some discreet space would make much of the universe ultimately behave in a discreet manner, although in a small enough fashion so as to not be noticeable.

Jayjay · 08-01-2003, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Witt
Your nonsense is appalling.
Why is it that you do not understand that, this is an infidel forum?
Catholicism is the least likely to get respect here!!

To be fair, I think that catholicism does receive a lot more respect here than certain branches of protestantism. Not that it has anything to do with the topic at hand.

Witt · 08-01-2003, 11:48 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Witt
Your nonsense is appalling.
Why is it that you do not understand that, this is an infidel forum?
Catholicism is the least likely to get respect here!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jayjay:
To be fair, I think that catholicism does receive a lot more respect here than certain branches of protestantism. Not that it has anything to do with the topic at hand.

I have 0 tolerence for any religious individuals, catholic or otherwise, who want to state their nonsense without reasons.

I expect our fellow-poster 'Albert the Catholic' will dismiss logic and quickly adopt 'magic' as a source of truth.

I see no branches of religion that are deserving of my respect, do you?

Witt

08-01-2003, 10:38 AM	#37
Witt Banned Join Date: May 2003 Location: Toronto Canada Posts: 1,263	Catholic Nonsense What is it about secular humanism that tries so hard to make everything nice? Pasting happy face Band-Aids over this blighted world is not realistic. Whereas Catholicism, unlike any other world view, sees things as they are � corrupted. Let me count the ways: 1) animals live off death 2) life is mortal 3) pleasure is fleeting while pain is chronic 4) love is irrational while eugenics is logical 5) construction is more difficult to accomplish than destruction 6) sense is rarer than nonsense 7) the curse of work and the worse fate of being unemployed 8) labor pains and thistles ------------------------------------ Your nonsense is appalling. Why is it that you do not understand that, this is an infidel forum? Catholicism is the least likely to get respect here!! That creatures eat other creatures "alive" is a fact of the world, and no amount of guilt will change that. Your evident lack of understanding is prevalent within the "folly" of theism, and especially catholicism. Please go preach elsewhere, you will not be heard here, ..by deliberate choice! If you want to argue logically about your beliefs, ..lets do it! I enjoy arguing with fundies and catholics because, .. they are so easy to beat. With anticipation, Witt

08-01-2003, 11:48 AM	#40
Witt Banned Join Date: May 2003 Location: Toronto Canada Posts: 1,263	Re: Catholic Nonsense quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Witt Your nonsense is appalling. Why is it that you do not understand that, this is an infidel forum? Catholicism is the least likely to get respect here!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jayjay: To be fair, I think that catholicism does receive a lot more respect here than certain branches of protestantism. Not that it has anything to do with the topic at hand. I have 0 tolerence for any religious individuals, catholic or otherwise, who want to state their nonsense without reasons. I expect our fellow-poster 'Albert the Catholic' will dismiss logic and quickly adopt 'magic' as a source of truth. I see no branches of religion that are deserving of my respect, do you? Witt

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-31-2003, 09:10 AM	#32
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	Thought I don't really know much about MWI, I think if time was continuous, there would be huge problems with MWI (my favourite quantum mechanics interpretation)... if time is discrete, the branchings off of alternate histories would be limited, though near infinite. If time is continuous, there would be an infinite amount of branching because of the infinite density - so within one second of time (even just after the big bang, near the root of the branches), there'd be an infinite number of parallel universes.

08-01-2003, 10:48 AM	#38
jfryejr Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 764	I think the problem with trying to imagine time as a continuum is related to Zeno's Paradox of how it's impossible to ever walk anywhere because you must first cross half of the distance from point x to point y. Then you must cross half of that distance, then half of that distance, ad infinitum. (I realize this is solvable with a Riemann sum.) I think the concept of something being continuous encounters a problem when one considers the problem of infinite divisibility. At which point does something stop being continuous so that it can move on to the next discreet step? I think most of the known particles occupying some discreet space would make much of the universe ultimately behave in a discreet manner, although in a small enough fashion so as to not be noticeable.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.