»Please tell something that is absolutely true«
|
|||
 Do Absolutes exist if we indeed live in a multiverse? fatpie42: Um yes but to say an electron is only negative if it exists is to bed the question. Can you give me an instance of an electron that is not negatively charged? well, if we do indeed live in a multiverse or another universe is created if there is a Big Crunch then it is possible that there would be different Universal Laws in each universe. There is even loose evidence that matter behave different in our universe billions of light years away. stinkz: Laws of logic are unchanging and absolute. I would say the same thing applies to your statement. Relative to this universe, then yes, this is likely true. But if a multiverse or other quantum realities exist, then you can't necessarily say your statement applies across the board. We know so little about the universe/potential multiverse, how can we claim to know so much about absolutes? posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgTechnology, Computers, Science, InternetScience (Assorted topics)Please tell something that is absolutely true |
|
|||
 volunteshiva: There is even loose evidence that matter behave different in our universe billions of light years away. If by "different" you mean "contrary to laws of logic" then this statement is utter nonsense. volunteshiva: We know so little about the universe/potential multiverse, how can we claim to know so much about absolutes? Without absolutes, no knowledge is possible. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: volunteshiva: There is even loose evidence that matter behave different in our universe billions of light years away. If by "different" you mean "contrary to laws of logic" then this statement is utter nonsense. Of course it wouldn't be contrary to the laws of logic. But what are the laws of logic? Are we sure we know them? Maybe it would be contrary to OUR laws of OUR logic, but afterall, we KNOW we only have a piece of the picture. It's not unreasonable to think that perhaps we're making laws about things based on things we see in our own little corner, but that these really aren't laws at all, as they don't necessarily apply to the whole picture. posted by Nianza |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: volonteshiva: There is even loose evidence that matter behave different in our universe billions of light years away. If by "different" you mean "contrary to laws of logic" then this statement is utter nonsense. So you can say with utter certainty that given a whole different set of parameters for a universe and the life that would populate it, that logic would be the same as we see it/use it in this universe w/ our set of laws? stinkz: volonteshiva: We know so little about the universe/potential multiverse, how can we claim to know so much about absolutes? Without absolutes, no knowledge is possible. Yes, but if there is a multiverse then perhaps those absolutes that we know of are only relative to this universe. Ok, how about we list a set of rules/statements/things that we believe to be absolutes in this universe... posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 volonteshiva: well, if we do indeed live in a multiverse or another universe is created if there is a Big Crunch then it is possible that there would be different Universal Laws in each universe. How about the simplest concepts --- true and false. In our universe, they are opposites. Are you thinking that in another universe, true == false? volonteshiva: stinkz: If by "different" you mean "contrary to laws of logic" then this statement is utter nonsense. So you can say with utter certainty that given a whole different set of parameters for a universe and the life that would populate it, that logic would be the same as we see it/use it in this universe w/ our set of laws? Don't feed the trolls. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: volunteshiva: There is even loose evidence that matter behave different in our universe billions of light years away. If by "different" you mean "contrary to laws of logic" then this statement is utter nonsense. The presumptions you are making here are based on induction, Stinkz. Induction is logically invalid. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't know about science in general; the concept of different dimensions in string theory is a very different idea to this. But it seems like the idea being talked about on this thread is modal realism which belongs to the field of Metaphysics (which should cause some concern). Modal Realism is the concept proposed by the great philosopher David Lewis that all sorts of philosophy problems are solved if we suggest that every possible world actually exists. This view has often been received with an 'incredulous stare'. Normally I wouldn't want to inflict philosophy on this forum, since a lot of it involves a great deal of heavy reading. However, it just so happens that the following site gives a fairly simple and moderately short explanation of the pros and cons of Lewis' Modal Realism:  BTW, no doubt to Stinkz' jubilation, Lewis claims that other universes differ in content and not in kind. As a result you might be able to have another universe where an electron is positive, but the way things interact will not be changed. However, this does not dispute Volonteshiva's suggestion that particles could interact differently (ie. have different/unusual dispositions) in areas of the universe we have not yet seen. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: Can you give me an instance of an electron that is not negatively charged? according to my science teacher, heh, there is a thing called a positron. its where a proton breaks up into a neutron and a positron (an electron). this has to deal with nuclear fission, if there are too many protons, the nucleus breaks up some protons. that's what i grasped from my science class. posted by sangu |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
A postitron is not an electron. I am saying that you can't have an electron without negative charge. It is similar to saying that you cannot have water which is not H2O or triangles which are not three sided. You can't say "a positron is a postively charged electron" any more than you can say "a square is a four-sided triangle". posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
sangu: heh, there is a thing called a positron. A positron is the antimatter equivalent of an electron. An antielection.  posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Equivalent isn't good enough either. The picture of Great Britain on a map is the equivalent of Great Britain in real life. That is all very well, but we certainly wouldn't want to say that the picture WAS Great Britain. A positron is not an electron. They are essentially different things, regardless of whether they are similar in their workings. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: Equivalent isn't good enough either. I think volonte was agreeing with you. By calling it the antimatter equivalent, he was saying it's the polar opposite. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Silly me  posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
volunteshiva: So you can say with utter certainty that given a whole different set of parameters for a universe and the life that would populate it, that logic would be the same as we see it/use it in this universe w/ our set of laws? Logic would be the same, yes. However, I don't think that means that the laws we've induced would necessarily be the same. fatpie42: The presumptions you are making here are based on induction, Stinkz. The only "presumption" I make is that matter operates according to the laws of logic. That is not induced, it is assumed. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ok, thanks for clearing that up. my science knowledge is pretty limited, so thanks. posted by sangu |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3 Next
Goto page
1, 2, 3 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 2 December 2008, 00:41 php B.B. |