Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2014, 03:33 PM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(19-08-2014 03:25 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 03:21 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  I heard quantum theorists came up with an estimation of how big the universe is, so yes; I don't know personally, I was told people know.

Est of bigness != theoretical limit.

Theory = kinda... like model. Est of bigness is physical measurement. Theoretical limit would be for example if they say something like "based on the measured value of the cosmological constant and the standard model of physics, universe can't be bigger than X".

Yes, I leave this field to people who have skills and interest in it, I find behavioural psychology to be the most relevant field to humanity so I focus my brain power there. I think if I had a real interest in math and quantum theory I may be able understand it, but I'd rather be doing other stuff.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 03:58 PM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(19-08-2014 03:19 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  I mean what is potential? Does it have to be anything or can it just be the possibility of something?

Something has to exist for it to have potential. The word by itself is too ambiguous and requires a context.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 06:52 PM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
I believe it's a fact that we currently have no evidence for the existence of a god.

You wanted a fact based answer on my position. There you go.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Rahn127's post
20-08-2014, 12:15 AM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(19-08-2014 03:33 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 03:25 PM)morondog Wrote:  Est of bigness != theoretical limit.

Theory = kinda... like model. Est of bigness is physical measurement. Theoretical limit would be for example if they say something like "based on the measured value of the cosmological constant and the standard model of physics, universe can't be bigger than X".

Yes, I leave this field to people who have skills and interest in it, I find behavioural psychology to be the most relevant field to humanity so I focus my brain power there. I think if I had a real interest in math and quantum theory I may be able understand it, but I'd rather be doing other stuff.

That's the great thing about math. It has applications almost ANYWHERE.

If your interest is in behavioral psychology, I'd recommend a look at game theory.

As for the size of the universe, the light speed limit has created a kinda-confusing model. One way of viewing the size of the universe is as the region of space from which light has arrived at our location to be observed. This region is roughly spherical, with a radius of... what, rougly 14-billion light-years, with us in the center. Not because there's anything special about us, mind you. Just because this is our frame of reference. In this model (which is more a different perspective than a claim of fact), we go back in time the further away we are from HERE, and the edge of the universe is the Big Bang, because that's when the light coming to us from that edge was generated. Halfway to that edge it's 7-billion years ago. Anything at that point in space, we are now viewing at a time-delay of 7-billion years.

In this model, the universe is roughly 28 billion light years across, (14b in any direction from us, for a 28b ly diameter), and expanding at a speed of 2c (1c in either direction). Though I think things get weird when you account for inflation.

But this is just a convenient model, a shift in perspective useful for astronomers, rather than a physical fact of what is present out in deep space in the actual present. Astronomers talk this way, and they and their amateur fans understand what they mean, but occasionally lay people get confused.

So this isn't to say that there isn't anything 16 billion light-years away from us, right now. In a conventional, Euclidean sense, there probably is. We just can't see it yet, and won't for another 16 billion years. (Or never, if I recall correctly some things that Dr. Tyson said about dark energy eventually moving galaxies away from us faster than the speed of light.) In this conventional sense, we have no measure of the size of the universe. At all. It may well be of infinite expanse. It may have a (hyper)spherical curvature, meaning that it loops back on itself, much like what would happen if you keep going in one direction around the earth, in which case it would be finite, and what we think we're seeing, say, 10 billion light years away is us, 10 billion years ago. It may even have a hyperbolic curvature, which is also infinite, and.... funky, and does weird things to parallel lines.

But no. We do not know the size of the universe. The observable universe, yes. The universe at large, no.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: