new evidence suggests the universe doesn't exist

[action]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bridaineparnell/2017/10/26/science-still-doesnt-know-how-the-universe-exists/#52975daa37f8

are we all living in a dream? or ist it just me that's dreaming, and all of you are just characters in a non existing world? they say i have a rich imagination. maybe that's why there's such an eclectic band of characters to be found around here?

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, action said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bridaineparnell/2017/10/26/science-still-doesnt-know-how-the-universe-exists/#52975daa37f8

are we all living in a dream? or ist it just me that's dreaming, and all of you are just characters in a non existing world? they say i have a rich imagination. maybe that's why there's such an eclectic band of characters to be found around here?

No, new evidence does not suggest the Universe doesn't exist, but this new evidence makes it harder to come up with good theories on how it came to exist.

[action]

55 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, new evidence does not suggest the Universe doesn't exist, but this new evidence makes it harder to come up with good theories on how it came to exist.

it doesn't contradict it either.

the evidence points to equal amounts of matter and anti matter. so they "should" have canceled each other out at the start of the big bang. With our current knowledge, that is what should have happened, and there is no proof to say the contrary.

this evidence isn't contradicting the theory that the universe doesn't exist (and is, in fact, a simulation. like a dream). and if it doesnt contradict it, it supports it.

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, action said:

this evidence isn't contradicting the theory that the universe doesn't exist (and is, in fact, a simulation. like a dream). and if it doesnt contradict it, it supports it.

I would argue that the very fact that we can do studies on matter and anti-matter strongly suggests the Universe DOES exit, and as such the evidence actually does contradict the theory.

Additionally, as a general principle, the fact that something doesn't contradict something doesn't mean it supports it. Here's an example: The theory of evolution does not contradict the theory that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean that the theory of evolution supports the flat-earth theory. 

If you are going to take the fact that contemporary evidence on matter and anti-matter that makes it harder to come up with strong theories on the evolution of the Universe, as evidence for the Universe not existing, then you are making a mistake.

[The Glow Inc.]

I'm pretty sure one of the controversed underlying assumption of quantum theory is that the entire universe only comes into existence the moment an observer ( human, animal, machine... ) is aware / witnesses / measures its existence, that matter is actually a cloud of probabilities that freezes in and out of existence, in and out of stasis the moment it is observed.

So how much of a stretch is it to say that the universe ( as welll as everyone of us ) only exist if Something is there to witness its existence ( kinda like a server only generates a gameworld when a player logs in to play ).

[DieselDaisy]

When is NASA or another space agency going to invent warp travel and visit some aliens. They have done bugger all since the moon landing, just some photos of Jupiter's rings. I though we would have met martians with ray guns by now - that is the only thing that interests me. Lazy buggers. 

[action]

50 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I would argue that the very fact that we can do studies on matter and anti-matter strongly suggests the Universe DOES exit, and as such the evidence actually does contradict the theory.

Additionally, as a general principle, the fact that something doesn't contradict something doesn't mean it supports it. Here's an example: The theory of evolution does not contradict the theory that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean that the theory of evolution supports the flat-earth theory. 

If you are going to take the fact that contemporary evidence on matter and anti-matter that makes it harder to come up with strong theories on the evolution of the Universe, as evidence for the Universe not existing, then you are making a mistake.

that's why it is just a theory at this point.

as long as a theory isnt proven wrong, it remains a theory to be investigated. that's how science works.

absolute truth doesnt exist, nowhere in science. ask any quantum scientist.

einstein's relativity theory is the basis of our current science on nature. but it isnt proven yet. every new discovery we make, "doesnt contradict relativity" and so people say "another confirmation for einstein's theory".

we now know einstein's theory is flawed though. it doesnt work on a quantum level.

[SoulMonster]

23 minutes ago, action said:

that's why it is just a theory at this point.

as long as a theory isnt proven wrong, it remains a theory to be investigated. that's how science works.

absolute truth doesnt exist, nowhere in science. ask any quantum scientist.

einstein's relativity theory is the basis of our current science on nature. but it isnt proven yet. every new discovery we make, "doesnt contradict relativity" and so people say "another confirmation for einstein's theory".

we now know einstein's theory is flawed though. it doesnt work on a quantum level.

I kinda know how science works

I disagree with your statement that Einstein's general or specific theory of relativity form the basis of our current science on nature, just like I would be reluctant to say that any other single theory in physics have that particular honor. Our current understanding is based on the cumulative theories we have, across many scientific discipline, not any single one. We simply haven't found a universal theory, yet, although many physicists have been working on this for a long time (look up "theory of everything"). Maybe in the future we will be able to combine all the theories we have into one single universal theory, but we aren't there just yet.

"Every new discovery we make" ON RELATIVITY that "doesn't contradict relativity" could be said to "confirm Einstein's theories". Yes. But every new evidence IN GENERAL that doesn't contradict relativity simply cannot be said to confirm Einstein's theories (as I tried explaining in my last post). This is apples and oranges. Evidence from material technology that doesn't contradict relativity, does simply not support relativity. Otherwise you could argue that the Earth is flat because you have literally thousands of data that does not directly contradict this idea and hence they must support it. Additionally, and again as previously stated, new evidence on the evolution of the Universe (like the matter and anti-matter in the Forbes story that are aspects of the Universe) can only strengthen the theory that the Universe exists

 

 

[Len Cnut]

Science is boring as fuck.  I'm glad there are other people that are really into it cuz its obviously an immensely valuable field of human endeavour that should be explored thoroughly, I'm just glad it's not me that has to do it cuz it puts me to sleep.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Science is boring as fuck.  I'm glad there are other people that are really into it cuz its obviously an immensely valuable field of human endeavour that should be explored thoroughly, I'm just glad it's not me that has to do it cuz it puts me to sleep.

If you want to understand the universe and human beings all you need is a copy of Shakespeare's complete works. It is all in there - everything you need to know. 

[Len Cnut]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

If you want to understand the universe and human beings all you need is a copy of Shakespeare's complete works. It is all in there - everything you need to know. 

You're not the first person in the world to say that y'know.  In fact I've even heard it said that every narrative possibility is contained within Billy Waggle-Dagger's works.

[soon]

I cant account for y'all, but I know I exist and am fairly sure that the universe does too.  I remember as a child sitting in the boat, fishing, with my Grampa.  And I asked these 'dreamed reality' and the above questions to him and my cousin.  Grampa said "well, you've got a philosophical cord running through ya..." and then he proceeded to prescribe for me hard labour and the extend chopping of logs.  The proverbial "wax on, wax off" 

Edited October 27, 2017 by soon

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Science is boring as fuck. 

 

If you read primary sources for science, that is peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals intended for relevant scientists, then yes, that is usually boring as fuck unless you have a strong interest in that particular field. The language of science has been developed to be concise and precise, not entertaining or elegant. Additionally, most scientific authors write in a secondary language. 

There are exceptions to this, some few scientists can both write papers that are scientifically strong and manage to make it interesting to lay people, either through beautiful language or because the results are especially interesting beyond that niche scientific environment. But those are few. Most scientists have enough with just being able to present their results in a scientifically stringent way in a foreign language. 

Then we have those who has as a job to popularise science. Journalists, commentators, authors, etc. They might be good at writing, or they might be good at science, but rarely both. Some noteworthy examples are Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, and Carl Sagan. 

So yes, science has a challenge when it omes tt ppopulating results and theories in an entertaining way. It becomes either inaccessible or oring. 

[Ace Nova]

The source of the  symmetry break are realms beyond space and time that can't be observed or understood by modern day science, created by God...which could include what religions describe as Heaven...Hell and maybe even a form of Purgatory.

This entire Universe is merely a reflection of the upper dimmensions...similar to what a shadow from our world would look like to a 2 dimmensional being, living on a flat surface.

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by Kasanova King

[Len Cnut]

10 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

The source of the  symmetry break are realms beyond space and time that can't be observed or understood by modern day science, created by God...which could include what religions describe as Heaven...Hell and maybe even a form of Purgatory.

 

[Ace Nova]

On 10/27/2017 at 9:58 AM, Len Cnut said:

My theory is based on faith but it can also be described in non religious terms

The break between matter and anti matter are realms in upper dimmensions...4th dimension and beyond.

Edited October 28, 2017 by Kasanova King

[SoulMonster]

19 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

The source of the  symmetry break are realms beyond space and time that can't be observed or understood by modern day science, created by God...which could include what religions describe as Heaven...Hell and maybe even a form of Purgatory.

This entire Universe is merely a reflection of the upper dimmensions...similar to what a shadow from our world would look like to a 2 dimmensional being, living on a flat surface.

Perfect example of the "god of the gaps" idea where whatever we don't currently fully understand is explained with "god", but where these gaps in our knowledge are becoming increasing small and rare. Back in pre-history it was the movement of the sun, today it is the source of symmetry breaks Very good, KK.

[Ace Nova]

Like I said, it can be also described in non religious terms. 

But it's even written in the Bible...in Genesis:

"And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so."

The "expanse" is (or could be) an upper dimension. 

The "waters" are (or could be) matter and anti matter.

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by Kasanova King

[Dazey]

4 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

You're not the first person in the world to say that y'know.  In fact I've even heard it said that every narrative possibility is contained within Billy Waggle-Dagger's works.

I'd rather slurp tramp shit through a sweaty sock than read a single page of that shite!

 

[Len Cnut]

8 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I'd rather slurp tramp shit through a sweaty sock than read a single page of that shite!

 

Or indeed read at all!   

[DieselDaisy]

High art for Dazey is Predator. 

[action]

1 hour ago, Kasanova King said:

Like I said, it can be also described in non religious terms. 

But it's even written in the Bible...in Genesis:

"And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so."

The "expanse" is (or could be) an upper dimension. 

The "waters" are (or could be) matter and anti matter.

 

that caught my attention too

[Ace Nova]

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I don't agree with your faith but if I did, surely this would be purgatory?

You mean here, in our current 3 dimensional world? 

[Ace Nova]

9 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Yup

Some Christians don't believe in Purgatory at all.  I'm Catholic and we believe that Purgatory is part of the journey we go through in the afterlife. 

So no, according to my faith, Purgatory isn't what we see here in our 3 dimensional world...although it could be all around us (in another dimension) but we just don't see it.  There's references to the Kingdom of God being here, but we just can't see it...in both the Bible and Gnostic texts...which seems to allude to the existence of other dimensions.

 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by Kasanova King

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

Like I said, it can be also described in non religious terms. 

But it's even written in the Bible...in Genesis:

"And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so."

The "expanse" is (or could be) an upper dimension. 

The "waters" are (or could be) matter and anti matter.

 

Still god in the gaps. There is zero reason to believe that since we yet don't know everything about break of symmetry, it must be caused by a deity. This is just goddicts who frantically crave arguments to substantiate their irrational beliefs.