Title: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: Messenger on January 19, 2009, 10:57:02 AM
Post by: Messenger on January 19, 2009, 10:57:02 AM
Based on the concept of prove by contradictions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction) which is commonly known in Algorithms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm)
Analyzing all options then eliminating all impossible options, the remaining possible option is proved. P(N1)=1-P(N2)-P(N3)-......
Definitions
E = Existence (everything that really exist)
U = Observed Universe
G = Something outside/separate of the Universe
f(t) = function of time (State), at a specific time t
C(A) = Creator/Initiator of A
Y [Fn]-> Z, means using Fact n, Y leads to Z
Facts
F1- There is nothing beyond logic, illogical is impossible (Falsidical Paradoxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox) or Liar Paradoxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox) do not exist).
F2- Every Action (verb) that started needs a doer
F3- CoE, Energy in the universe is finite
F4- U(T) <> U(T+t) where t almost =0 for all T, t Universe is not static, state of U at any time T, does not equal its state after a small time t.
The Proof (Proving a Creator)
E= U + G (G >=0)
Existence = Universe + Possible G
We have only 2 options, if one of them is impossible the other is proved.
1-If U(t) =0 [F1,F2] -> G>0 And G=C(U)
If at any point of time t, U did not exist, (based on Logic, necessity of a Doer) something G existed and created U.
2-If G=0 then E=U [F1, F4] -> E=U(t) for every t And U(t1) â,¬ U(t2)
If the universe is eternal a creator does not need to exist, Universe is all the Existence at any time.
Its states are random (Coincidences), state 1 does not relate to state 2 as a whole.
(Individual events based on natural laws are not random, but independent events are random if no God)
[F3, F4] -> U(t)=N And N<Infinity
Based on Facts 3, 4 States of U are finite, But U is eternal, and how much big N is, it must be repeated, If no God, The Universe must be cyclic
E.g. a dice has 6 states, if it is thrown for 100 times, some of its state must repeat as 100>6 Same with two dices, Or throwing a dice two times, No. of possible 2 throws combinations is 36 As 100>36, some of the outcome combinations or sequence must repeat as well, and so on.
Now if we increase number of dices and sequence to a very big number, number of throws to infinity, it must go in cycles, i.e. not only some states will be repeated but the whole sequence (How much big is the sequence) must repeat.
Based on Option2, The exact sequence of states since 15 billion years till now must repeat
Not only that, it must have happened infinite times before, and will happen infinite times in the future as well.
Repeating the same long sequence again and again is not random or coincidence, it contradicts with the assumption itself, i.e. a Paradox
_____________________________________________________________________________
Also it can be proven to be impossible by going backwards in time
If U is eternal, and changing, why it is now in the current state?
It took 15B years from the Big Bang to reach the current state
It had many 15B years before (As it is Eternal), It had enough time to reach any state in the past or future
N>T for every T
Either it had a start or it has reached the current state many times before (i.e. Cyclic)
Infinite number of real objects is just imaginary, it does not really exist
As the Universe changes, every moment, there is a new state, i.e. number of states increases
Go back in time, the number must decrease
the number of states must decrease to zero where the universe had a beginning
The only escape is to say that time itself is cyclic, then it needs a controller because it is not random
Option 2 is impossible -> Option 1 is proved,
_____________________________________________________________________________
A Creator of the Universe G must exist
G>0 and G=C(U) or G Contains C(U)
Analyzing all options then eliminating all impossible options, the remaining possible option is proved. P(N1)=1-P(N2)-P(N3)-......
Definitions
E = Existence (everything that really exist)
U = Observed Universe
G = Something outside/separate of the Universe
f(t) = function of time (State), at a specific time t
C(A) = Creator/Initiator of A
Y [Fn]-> Z, means using Fact n, Y leads to Z
Facts
F1- There is nothing beyond logic, illogical is impossible (Falsidical Paradoxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox) or Liar Paradoxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox) do not exist).
F2- Every Action (verb) that started needs a doer
F3- CoE, Energy in the universe is finite
F4- U(T) <> U(T+t) where t almost =0 for all T, t Universe is not static, state of U at any time T, does not equal its state after a small time t.
The Proof (Proving a Creator)
E= U + G (G >=0)
Existence = Universe + Possible G
We have only 2 options, if one of them is impossible the other is proved.
1-If U(t) =0 [F1,F2] -> G>0 And G=C(U)
If at any point of time t, U did not exist, (based on Logic, necessity of a Doer) something G existed and created U.
2-If G=0 then E=U [F1, F4] -> E=U(t) for every t And U(t1) â,¬ U(t2)
If the universe is eternal a creator does not need to exist, Universe is all the Existence at any time.
Its states are random (Coincidences), state 1 does not relate to state 2 as a whole.
(Individual events based on natural laws are not random, but independent events are random if no God)
[F3, F4] -> U(t)=N And N<Infinity
Based on Facts 3, 4 States of U are finite, But U is eternal, and how much big N is, it must be repeated, If no God, The Universe must be cyclic
E.g. a dice has 6 states, if it is thrown for 100 times, some of its state must repeat as 100>6 Same with two dices, Or throwing a dice two times, No. of possible 2 throws combinations is 36 As 100>36, some of the outcome combinations or sequence must repeat as well, and so on.
Now if we increase number of dices and sequence to a very big number, number of throws to infinity, it must go in cycles, i.e. not only some states will be repeated but the whole sequence (How much big is the sequence) must repeat.
Based on Option2, The exact sequence of states since 15 billion years till now must repeat
Not only that, it must have happened infinite times before, and will happen infinite times in the future as well.
Repeating the same long sequence again and again is not random or coincidence, it contradicts with the assumption itself, i.e. a Paradox
_____________________________________________________________________________
Also it can be proven to be impossible by going backwards in time
If U is eternal, and changing, why it is now in the current state?
It took 15B years from the Big Bang to reach the current state
It had many 15B years before (As it is Eternal), It had enough time to reach any state in the past or future
N>T for every T
Either it had a start or it has reached the current state many times before (i.e. Cyclic)
Infinite number of real objects is just imaginary, it does not really exist
As the Universe changes, every moment, there is a new state, i.e. number of states increases
Go back in time, the number must decrease
the number of states must decrease to zero where the universe had a beginning
The only escape is to say that time itself is cyclic, then it needs a controller because it is not random
Option 2 is impossible -> Option 1 is proved,
_____________________________________________________________________________
A Creator of the Universe G must exist
G>0 and G=C(U) or G Contains C(U)
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: Kyuuketsuki on January 19, 2009, 11:10:18 AM
Post by: Kyuuketsuki on January 19, 2009, 11:10:18 AM
Nope because you have not a shred of validatable evidence for said creator and all of your logical arguments are just plain bollox in the face of that.
Live with it, you're a failure!
Kyu
Live with it, you're a failure!
Kyu
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: Messenger on January 19, 2009, 11:22:17 AM
Post by: Messenger on January 19, 2009, 11:22:17 AM
Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Nope because you have not a shred of validatable evidence for said creator and all of your logical arguments are just plain bollox in the face of that.Your only escape is to deny a doer for every event
Or be a failure (ups I mean Atheist)
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: Kyuuketsuki on January 19, 2009, 12:21:06 PM
Post by: Kyuuketsuki on January 19, 2009, 12:21:06 PM
Quote from: "Messenger"Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Nope because you have not a shred of validatable evidence for said creator and all of your logical arguments are just plain bollox in the face of that.Your only escape is to deny a doer for every event
Or be a failure (ups I mean Atheist)
And your only escape is to hide behind calculations that make no sense in the real world and to AVOID every half decent post that is posted in response to your crap.
You're a COWARD!!!!!
Kyu
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: bowmore on January 19, 2009, 12:23:35 PM
Post by: bowmore on January 19, 2009, 12:23:35 PM
Quote from: "Messenger"Based on Facts 3, 4 States of U are finite, But U is eternal, and how much big N is, it must be repeated, If no God, The Universe must be cyclic
This is where your proof starts to go wrong.
U is eternal is not given, either in the definitions or the "facts", in fact it contradicts F3.
Quote from: "Messenger"Now if we increase number of dices and sequence to a very big number, number of throws to infinity, it must go in cycles, i.e. not only some states will be repeated but the whole sequence (How much big is the sequence) must repeat.
I'd like you to back this up with some mathematics.
In fact it is possible to think of a possible series of dice rolls that can never be cyclic.
Imagine a series of dice rolls where each roll is a 1, unless it is the n-th roll and n is a prime number. This series is never cyclic.
Quote from: "Messenger"A Creator of the Universe G must exist
G>0 and G=C(U)
Even though your proof breaks down before you even arrive at this point, I'd like to nitpick : the correct conclusion would be
G contains C(U)
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: Messenger on January 19, 2009, 01:12:56 PM
Post by: Messenger on January 19, 2009, 01:12:56 PM
Quote from: "bowmore"U is eternal is not given, either in the definitions or the "facts", in fact it contradicts F3.This is not a fact
This is a hypothesis, or an option
QuoteI'd like you to back this up with some mathematics.Please give me this series?
In fact it is possible to think of a possible series of dice rolls that can never be cyclic.
Imagine a series of dice rolls where each roll is a 1, unless it is the n-th roll and n is a prime number. This series is never cyclic.
QuoteEven though your proof breaks down before you even arrive at this point, I'd like to nitpick : the correct conclusion would beThanks, this should be corrected
G contains C(U)
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: curiosityandthecat on January 19, 2009, 03:06:58 PM
Post by: curiosityandthecat on January 19, 2009, 03:06:58 PM
Anyone else do this when reading the original post?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages45.fotki.com%2Fv1257%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F61970402-vi.gif&hash=ddf442894661dcdd2ddf6eb08a0a821f2f2090fa)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages45.fotki.com%2Fv1257%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F61970402-vi.gif&hash=ddf442894661dcdd2ddf6eb08a0a821f2f2090fa)
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: bowmore on January 19, 2009, 03:26:47 PM
Post by: bowmore on January 19, 2009, 03:26:47 PM
Quote from: "Messenger"Quote from: "bowmore"U is eternal is not given, either in the definitions or the "facts", in fact it contradicts F3.This is not a fact
This is a hypothesis, or an option
Well, you should state them in your argument as well.
And that still doesn't explain why you'd use it if it contradicts F3.
Quote from: "Messenger"QuoteI'd like you to back this up with some mathematics.Please give me this series?
In fact it is possible to think of a possible series of dice rolls that can never be cyclic.
Imagine a series of dice rolls where each roll is a 1, unless it is the n-th roll and n is a prime number. This series is never cyclic.
Ironically you quoted it. (this is further evidence you don't even bother to read and understand my posts)
I've now bolded it. Although I must admit I forgot to say the roll is 2 for every prime position in the series.
So to sum up the n-th roll of the series is a 1 if n is a composite and a 2 if n is a prime number.
(BTW if you can mathematically prove this series is cyclic, let me know, we're going to make heaps of money.)
I'll write the first few rolls :
1,2,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,1,2,1,2,1,1,1,2,1,2,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,2, ...
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: karadan on January 19, 2009, 04:24:11 PM
Post by: karadan on January 19, 2009, 04:24:11 PM
Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Anyone else do this when reading the original post?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages45.fotki.com%2Fv1257%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F61970402-vi.gif&hash=ddf442894661dcdd2ddf6eb08a0a821f2f2090fa)
Haha, yes, me. Although i didn't have a cigarette in my mouth, it was a mug of coffee
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: Ihateyoumike on January 19, 2009, 06:36:21 PM
Post by: Ihateyoumike on January 19, 2009, 06:36:21 PM
Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Anyone else do this when reading the original post?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages45.fotki.com%2Fv1257%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F61970402-vi.gif&hash=ddf442894661dcdd2ddf6eb08a0a821f2f2090fa)
Does it count if I did that while not reading the original post? I figured I'd just skip the OP and just go straight to everybody owning him. That's more fun, and makes me less likely to have to
.
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: Squid on January 19, 2009, 07:17:40 PM
Post by: Squid on January 19, 2009, 07:17:40 PM
Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Anyone else do this when reading the original post?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages45.fotki.com%2Fv1257%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F61970402-vi.gif&hash=ddf442894661dcdd2ddf6eb08a0a821f2f2090fa)
You can make a sculpture out of feces but no matter how good it looks doesn't change the fact that it's still sh**.
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: DennisK on January 19, 2009, 08:44:43 PM
Post by: DennisK on January 19, 2009, 08:44:43 PM
I prefer visual slide-of-hand tricks.
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: Tom62 on January 19, 2009, 09:09:22 PM
Post by: Tom62 on January 19, 2009, 09:09:22 PM
Nice to see God brought back to a simple mathematical equation. I'll type it into MS-Excel and see if He comes out.
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: Whitney on January 20, 2009, 02:30:03 AM
Post by: Whitney on January 20, 2009, 02:30:03 AM
Messenger, are you AFadly? You are probably going to get banned anyway (for ignoring my request to not start any more topics), but if you are not AFadly (and I can ask him at wwgha) you will be definately be banned for plagarism.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum ... 295.0;wap2 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=3295.0;wap2)
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum ... 295.0;wap2 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=3295.0;wap2)
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: curiosityandthecat on January 20, 2009, 02:59:16 AM
Post by: curiosityandthecat on January 20, 2009, 02:59:16 AM
Quote from: "laetusatheos"if you are not AFadly (and I can ask him at wwgha) you will be definately be banned for plagarism.
Wow, talk about fail. I mean, that's like Zoidberg-level fail.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages36.fotki.com%2Fv1174%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F1232411923362-vi.gif&hash=ab522b5fdbf6e0972cb47bae77effe194dda0d50)
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: Messenger on January 20, 2009, 02:05:21 PM
Post by: Messenger on January 20, 2009, 02:05:21 PM
Quote from: "laetusatheos"Messenger, are you AFadly? You are probably going to get banned anyway (for ignoring my request to not start any more topics), but if you are not AFadly (and I can ask him at wwgha) you will be definately be banned for plagarism.You got it right
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum ... 295.0;wap2 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=3295.0;wap2)
If most of you go to the other site, there is no need to repeat topics
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: Messenger on January 20, 2009, 02:06:55 PM
Post by: Messenger on January 20, 2009, 02:06:55 PM
Quote from: "laetusatheos"Messenger, are you AFadly? You are probably going to get banned anyway (for ignoring my request to not start any more topics)You created that thread yourself, but called it God Vs. Odin
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: Squid on January 20, 2009, 03:37:03 PM
Post by: Squid on January 20, 2009, 03:37:03 PM
Quote from: "Messenger"Quote from: "laetusatheos"Messenger, are you AFadly? You are probably going to get banned anyway (for ignoring my request to not start any more topics)You created that thread yourself, but called it God Vs. Odin
Ahem:
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2585
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: karadan on January 20, 2009, 04:53:36 PM
Post by: karadan on January 20, 2009, 04:53:36 PM
Quote from: "Squid"Quote from: "Messenger"Quote from: "laetusatheos"Messenger, are you AFadly? You are probably going to get banned anyway (for ignoring my request to not start any more topics)You created that thread yourself, but called it God Vs. Odin
Ahem:
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2585
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wtfis.com%2Fimages%2Fparis_pwnt.jpg&hash=5d238f42b64f57f8f9c178092c32ce0fde725ad3)
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: Whitney on January 21, 2009, 12:18:35 AM
Post by: Whitney on January 21, 2009, 12:18:35 AM
Messenger/AFaldy has been banned. The official reason is trolling.
-admin
-admin
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: Ihateyoumike on January 21, 2009, 12:26:44 AM
Post by: Ihateyoumike on January 21, 2009, 12:26:44 AM
Quote from: "laetusatheos"Messenger/AFaldy has been banned. The official reason is trolling.
-admin
I won't waste any tears. Good for you, laetusatheos.
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: Whitney on January 21, 2009, 12:39:07 AM
Post by: Whitney on January 21, 2009, 12:39:07 AM
Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"I won't waste any tears. Good for you, laetusatheos.
Don't thank me, McQ was ready to get rid of him a long time ago. I was running a small (unsuccessful) experiment to see if I could get Messenger to turn around.
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: Ihateyoumike on January 21, 2009, 12:52:01 AM
Post by: Ihateyoumike on January 21, 2009, 12:52:01 AM
Quote from: "laetusatheos"Don't thank me, McQ was ready to get rid of him a long time ago. I was running a small (unsuccessful) experiment to see if I could get Messenger to turn around.
Then, good for you McQ, laetusatheos, and the rest of the admin that do a great job on this site. :hail: :hail:
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: VanReal on January 21, 2009, 02:45:04 AM
Post by: VanReal on January 21, 2009, 02:45:04 AM
Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Anyone else do this when reading the original post?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages45.fotki.com%2Fv1257%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F61970402-vi.gif&hash=ddf442894661dcdd2ddf6eb08a0a821f2f2090fa)
Yes Curio! Actually that began occuring before I got to the pretty colors of the OP, hehe
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: SSY on January 21, 2009, 03:53:05 AM
Post by: SSY on January 21, 2009, 03:53:05 AM
End of an era
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: Whitney on January 21, 2009, 04:35:16 AM
Post by: Whitney on January 21, 2009, 04:35:16 AM
Quote from: "SSY"End of an era
Do you mean error?
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: toadhall on January 24, 2009, 11:36:12 AM
Post by: toadhall on January 24, 2009, 11:36:12 AM
Messenger seems to have unnecessarily obfuscated his main points; they are relatively simple and can be expressed in simple ways. This is what I could surmise as the crux of his argument:
1. Something may or may not exist outside the universe.
2. If the universe had a beginning: it must have been the result of an action perpetuated by the above "something".
3. If the universe did not have a beginning, then the universe exists in an infinite amount of time; therefore states the universe can be in are numbered.
4. The universe, therefore, is cyclic (cyclic in this sense meaning a sequence of events, or states, recurring over and over).
5. The universe being cyclic can only be true if willed so by a creator.
My take on these, be they or be they not Messenger's intended message:
My first objection is at 3. I don't feel you've adequately proved that states are finite. If your definition of "state" is as I take it, a given position of all matter in space (not time), then you've made the quick assumption that space itself is finite. If it is not, then by definition "states" cannot be finite.
My second objection is at 4. Of course, it assumes 3 is true for the sake of the argument, but if there are finite "states" it does not lead to the universe being "cyclic". A good example would be pi - there are an infinite amount of decimal places, each only allowed to take the form of ten "states", while having no recurring sequence.
My third objection is at 5. I see no way of proving that a cyclic universe must have been created - besides, the idea was first reached under the assumption that time was infinite and there was no need for anything apart from the universe to exist.
1. Something may or may not exist outside the universe.
2. If the universe had a beginning: it must have been the result of an action perpetuated by the above "something".
3. If the universe did not have a beginning, then the universe exists in an infinite amount of time; therefore states the universe can be in are numbered.
4. The universe, therefore, is cyclic (cyclic in this sense meaning a sequence of events, or states, recurring over and over).
5. The universe being cyclic can only be true if willed so by a creator.
My take on these, be they or be they not Messenger's intended message:
My first objection is at 3. I don't feel you've adequately proved that states are finite. If your definition of "state" is as I take it, a given position of all matter in space (not time), then you've made the quick assumption that space itself is finite. If it is not, then by definition "states" cannot be finite.
My second objection is at 4. Of course, it assumes 3 is true for the sake of the argument, but if there are finite "states" it does not lead to the universe being "cyclic". A good example would be pi - there are an infinite amount of decimal places, each only allowed to take the form of ten "states", while having no recurring sequence.
My third objection is at 5. I see no way of proving that a cyclic universe must have been created - besides, the idea was first reached under the assumption that time was infinite and there was no need for anything apart from the universe to exist.
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: Sophus on January 24, 2009, 08:32:16 PM
Post by: Sophus on January 24, 2009, 08:32:16 PM
Quote from: "toadhall"3. If the universe did not have a beginning, then the universe exists in an infinite amount of time; therefore states the universe can be in are numbered.
It would be infinite but infinity is not always account for everything because infinity can run in only one direction or both. Who's to say the universe won't end?
Title: Re: Proving that the observed Universe is not all
Post by: toadhall on January 25, 2009, 12:07:28 AM
Post by: toadhall on January 25, 2009, 12:07:28 AM
Quote from: "Sophus"Well, I don't know how you'd define "end" - the destruction of the universe would mimic a "de-creation" that could only mean two things. One, it caused its own end and therefore was a ticking time bomb to start with - but since we are working with the premise that the universe had no beginning (therefore the time-frame being infinite), this has to be false. Or two, an independent force or will caused this sudden unprecedented finish, much like what must have happened if the universe had a beginning. The only conclusion is that, because the universe by itself cannot cause its own beginning, neither can it be ultimately responsible for its own demise.Quote from: "toadhall"3. If the universe did not have a beginning, then the universe exists in an infinite amount of time; therefore states the universe can be in are numbered.
It would be infinite but infinity is not always account for everything because infinity can run in only one direction or both. Who's to say the universe won't end?