Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
An infinite series of finite causes.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostIntelligent responses would be appreciated like those referenced by Boxing Pythagoris as referenced.
Calculus is a tool for calculating actually infinite sets of objects, and this tool can be used to describe the workings of the real world with incredible accuracy, as Newton demonstrated with his celestial mechanics. There is some philosophical debate, however, as to whether such tools are just decent idealizations which provide reasonable approximations of reality, or whether they accurately describe reality.
I'm a Formalist when it comes to the philosophy of mathematics, so I think ALL mathematics is a purely abstract means of describing the real world-- including basic arithmetic. However, there are ways in which this abstraction can be more or less accurate in its description of the world.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWell that's interesting, I was under the assumption that the expansion of the universe played an intrical part in the increase in its entropy. So what is the cause then?
That is what the heat death of the universe will be like. No more significant differences in energy to actually do anything.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostOh! How precious! Sandbox talk!
Actually in another thread Boxing Pythagoris provides the best explanation for math on this topic and reading his posts will provide the best explanation. The following is an example.
Do you ever read about a topic, think about it, and then argue it from your own brain?
The fact that you just post block quotes suggest that you don't understand the topic. You simply find a couple of key words and then post the block of text around the sentence you like. That quote about entropy came from a lecture where that was literally the only text on the slide.
Comment
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostSimply put...heat and energy diffusion. Think of it as putting a drop of food coloring into a glass of water, once it reaches a state of equilibrium...there is no change that it can undergo. When the water gets homogenous, thats it.
That is what the heat death of the universe will be like. No more significant differences in energy to actually do anything.Last edited by JimL; 03-27-2018, 09:28 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostRight, but if the glass were to expand the entropy would continue to increase right. The heat and energy isn't added to the universe like a drop of food coloring to a glass of water, it's part and parcel to it and so it's entropy can't increase if the universe doesn't expand. Right?
However, you are technically correct that if you have an expanding universe then at what point do you reach an equilibrium. For example...at some point in time each atom will be a Hubble length away from its nearest neighbor. At that point, does entropy still increase? If so...how?
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostHuh? What I already spelled out for you was NOT complex at all. But thanks for fulfilling that prophecy I predicted! It's not a simple as 2+2=4, and it's on the same level as pretty much any philosophical issue. It'll never be like 2+2=4 and depending on how far you go, it could be something like square-integral functions. But that's not remotely how I already described it for you. Once again, you've put any potential explanation into the Procrustean bed of gross, caricatured simplicity, and you've done this to such an absurd degree, that you're free to demand for more elucidation no matter where the threshold is for sufficiency (you can literally shift the goal posts at any point for any stupid reason). And any attempt at further elucidation is further subject to your demand for more simplicity. It's no use even talking to you with these trollish escapades. Where's that mysterious, mythical line beyond which is too much explanation, and before which is too little? No one knows. You don't know. Why waste my time trying to feel out where it is? I've already explained it "too much": that wasn't good enough. I've already laid out simply what my points were in connect-the-dot thesis sentences: that wasn't good enough. I mean, seriously? How the heck do we go about this in a way that I already haven't gone about it?
Comment
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostWell it has never gotten to this point before. Maybe its because the topics are complex enough to hide his motives. But the fact that he can't / won't defend his accusation is telling.Last edited by Tassman; 03-27-2018, 08:32 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostIf you really want to pursue the trivial "he said/she said" type of exchange we were engaged in I'm happy to indulge you, but I would have thought we both had better things to do. Let me know.
I have an idea...If you don't want to defend your accusations then don't make them in the first place.Last edited by element771; 03-27-2018, 08:44 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostHe said / She said implies that there is no other evidence other than each others word, hence its what 'he said' vs what 'she said'. I supplied specific quotes by you so it is hardly he said / she said.
Secondly, your self-righteous assertion that I do the same to theists on a regular basis is nothing more than a childish: rebuttal usually found in schoolyards, not in adult forums.
I have an idea...If you don't want to defend your accusations then don't make them in the first place.Last edited by Tassman; 03-28-2018, 12:35 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostFirstly, your comment in #220 is a sly and unwarranted dig and cannot be construed any other way. Furthermore, it is simply wrong. Current theoretical physics regarding the possible infinite universe and multiverse is "cutting edge" science by any standard as compared to established science such as Evolution, which is uniformly accepted by the vast majority of scientists worldwide.
Secondly, your self-righteous assertion that I do the same to theists on a regular basis is nothing more than a childish: rebuttal usually found in schoolyards, not in adult forums.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
650 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment