This reminds me of an argument I made about Adam and Eve, in another thread.
My argument was that, since Adam and Eve were immortal, and God endowed them with curiosity, they would eventually eat the apple.
I think the same thing applies to your Case B. If God created a universe once, then given an infinite amount of time, he would create an infinite amount of universes. Of course, you can argue that God isn't bound by mathematics, but that's kind of a cop out.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 26 2005, 12:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 26 2005, 12:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think the same thing applies to your Case B. If God created a universe once, then given an infinite amount of time, he would create an infinite amount of universes. Of course, you can argue that God isn't bound by mathematics, but that's kind of a cop out. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't quite get your point here. Enlighten me please?
But my point was that a sentient God wouldn't need to create "1 universe every billion years" or whatever, he could just decide he wanted this one universe...or maybe 2 or 3, I don't know. But since he can actively make independant decisions, rather than simply being a product of influences (like a computer program), he could select some number, and make that many universes. There would be no need for them to continue to accumulate over time.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 26 2005, 10:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 26 2005, 10:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 26 2005, 12:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 26 2005, 12:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think the same thing applies to your Case B. If God created a universe once, then given an infinite amount of time, he would create an infinite amount of universes. Of course, you can argue that God isn't bound by mathematics, but that's kind of a cop out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't quite get your point here. Enlighten me please?
But my point was that a sentient God wouldn't need to create "1 universe every billion years" or whatever, he could just decide he wanted this one universe...or maybe 2 or 3, I don't know. But since he can actively make independant decisions, rather than simply being a product of influences (like a computer program), he could select some number, and make that many universes. There would be no need for them to continue to accumulate over time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't have a point. I just found that it's an interesting connection.
However, it would invalidate the comment you made saying that a sentient being would be able to wait, and then create a universe. The sentient being would either make 0 universes or infinite universes, given an infinite amount of time. Thus, there would be an infinite amount of universes before and after ours. Even with a 0.0000000000000001% inclination to make a universe, he'll make an infinite number.
You're missing my point. A non-sentient force might have a 1% inclination, or .01% inclination, or .00001% inclination to create a universe today. But a sentient force doesn't make decisions based on probability. He uses some other reason, such as, "I haven't made a purple universe yet", or, "I want to make a universe with humans so they can worship me", or whatever. And these logic-based reasons will be finite, and therefore the universes produced will be finite.
Oh, and I misspoke here... <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't quite get your point here. Enlighten me please?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Change "point" to "logic" in that sentence. I get why you think that conclusion is important, I just dont get how you got that conclusion.
I guess it depends on how you define God. If every single action God makes is 100% bound by logic and 0% bound by chance, then God can wait and will do what he wants. Now, if God performs His actions based upon chance (much like we would flip a coin to determine an action), even if chance plays an extremely small role, then God will create an infinite number of universes. This is because in an infinite universe, everything that can possibly happen will happen an infinite number of times. So if the chance of God doing something is >0%, then he'll do it infinitely.
Ok, rather than trying to argue WHY god would or wouldn't use chance in his actions, lets take the easy way out: lets define God Type R (who uses logic and chance), and God Type L (who uses only logic). So now you have B theory with R god, and B theory with L God.
So B-R would result in God making infinite universes, while B-L would result in finite universes. Then lets make B-N the name for the non-sentient Eternal Force case. So B-L gets us some number of universes--it might be 1, it might be 10, whatever, but theres some number. B-R results in infinite universes, and most likely B-N will too (that or 0).
I'm not sure if I'm actually making progress or not, but this is certainly fun. Now let me start writing down some of my findings on C-type theories.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 11:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 11:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Category A theory: Any theory where, at some point in the distant past, there was True Nothing™. Any sort of time period may have interceded between the initial origin of reality, and the origin of our current universe, any method may be proposed for that intermittent period or the original creation, but if the Prime Point of Origin started with True Nothing™, then its a Category A. [...] The problem with category A is that even if you postulate a mechanism by which something might arise from nothing, that mechanism counts as something and you wind up having to reclassify into one of the other categories anyway. So that means all theories of the origin of our particular universe have to be constructed in such a way as to eventually meet the requirements of either category B or C. If you haven't met either of those categories, then the theory hasn't yet reached an explanation for the origin of reality...it might explain other things, but it won't explain the ultimate origin. (actual discussions of B and C class theories to be left for another post) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem I see here is that it is entirely possible for there to have once existed a True Nothing in our perspective of the Universe, while at the same time there was...something...brewing in alternate dimensions. And as long as you assume that there are multiple dimensions, some of which are unable to 'see' others, you might as well assume that some dimensions can "ignore" others. Time, being the fourth dimension, could easily have been "ignored" by whatever existed in the 5th, 6th, etc dimensions that eventually gave rise to the universe. Therefore, in the absence of time, that "whatever" - be it a brane or something even more strange - would have existed for all eternity while at the same time existing for no time at all.
(in case my choice of abbreviations confuses anyone, they stand for B-Randomgod, B-Logicalgod, and B-Nonsentient originator)
Ok--current astrophysical theories of the universe. This is not a complete list, and leaves room for the introduction of new theories as well as any I've just forgotten. (unlike my 3 categories breakdown, which I am fairly confidant covers all theories)
Big Bang theory: Postulates that all observable matter and energy originated in a single large explosion at the center of the universe, some 13-17 Billion years ago. Very good (though not perfect) at explaining the origin of the observable universe. Makes no attempt to explain the origin of the big bang itself. Therefore not a complete origin theory, without additional supporting theories to justify the presence of a big bang at all.
Brane Theory: Seeks to justify the big bang through collisions of theoretical "branes", which were bouncing around in some 5-Dimensional space prior to our big bang. No direct explanation is given for where these branes come from, and most likely this theory would be classified as B-N type. In this theory a new universe is not "created" by a brane collision, but is rather contained within a brane. Apparently there are two postulated "static branes" that form the boundary of a space where a third brane glides inside, bouncing off the bounding branes occcasionally and triggering violent changes to the 3D material inside the bounding branes that result in spaces like ours. For some reason brane theory has trouble coexisting with the observed acceleration in the expansion of our universe.
(edit: Just to clarify, this is a long list, but I'll only post them about 2 at a time because thats all I have time for. If anyone else wants to add a theory I've forgotten or just haven't gotten around to yet, by all means feel free.)
After pondering brane theory for awhile, I believe I have a way to refute it as a B-N type theory. The theory is still new though, so it is possible that revisions to the theory might change things.
Under current brane theory, the explanation given for our 4-space Big Bang is that the mobile brane collided with our brane, and the collision added energy to the contact point in our brane, heating it up enough to cause a Big Bang explosion. However, that requires that the energy added to our brane be subtracted from the mobile brane. While this works fine for the 1st collision, the 2nd collision, and maybe even the 1000th collision, eventually the mobile brane will be drained of energy and stop moving. This method cannot therefore reach infinity, and does not qualify as a B-N theory. There must be an additional origin prior to the branes.
Next theory: Dual Bang theory. The discovery of certain objects that appear to be too far away to have reached their current positions in the time since our initial Big Bang has prompted the development of the Dual Bang theory. This postulates that rather than 1 Big Bang, there were 2, in separate regions of space. (the theory leaves open the possibility of additional ones, but has no evidence for more than 2 at this point). Otherwise very similar to Big Bang theory, except that it is even worse as an Ultimate Origin theory, since any force that <i>might</i> randomly produce one Big Bang would be hard pressed to create two, and in relatively close temporal proximity. It also disallows the idea of the Big Bang producing space as well as mass, as there must be enough space initially to have room for two disparate Bang events. This makes it much more difficult for dual bang theory to explain Cosmic Background Radiation.
Many Bang Theory: In an attempt to dodge the need for an Ultimate Origin, the C class Many Bang Theory proposes that our universe is much larger than the observed universe, and contains many regions similar to our own, each produced by a separate Bang. As the matter from these bangs expands, it is devoured by super-massive black holes that eventually grow to an unstable size, detonating to serve as a new Big Bang. In this way matter is continually recycled through a series of Big Bangs that could theoretically continue for eternity. The gravitational pull from these other Bang-regions does a nice job of accounting for the acceleration in our own regions expansion. However, Many Bang Theory has no way of accounting for Cosmic Background Radiation (at least so far).
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 26 2005, 12:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 26 2005, 12:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The problem I see here is that it is entirely possible for there to have once existed a True Nothing in our perspective of the Universe, while at the same time there was...something...brewing in alternate dimensions. And as long as you assume that there are multiple dimensions, some of which are unable to 'see' others, you might as well assume that some dimensions can "ignore" others. Time, being the fourth dimension, could easily have been "ignored" by whatever existed in the 5th, 6th, etc dimensions that eventually gave rise to the universe. Therefore, in the absence of time, that "whatever" - be it a brane or something even more strange - would have existed for all eternity while at the same time existing for no time at all. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry, I completely missed your post until just now. Must have been cause I was in progress of writing my own long post when you posted this.
Indeed, that is a problem. For purity's sake though, that can't count as Class A. Simply because we can't observe or even interact with these other dimensions with other stuff in them doesn't mean they don't invalidate the "nothing" clause. Any theory suggesting this is going to be either B or C class.
If there is a God, I suspect that this is as close of a scientific description as we're going to get of how he works. B-L class fits with this description quite nicely. There are probably some C class theories that take advantage of it too, although I don't know of any offhand.
I personally have a hard time grasping how, even if something existed outside of a time dimension, it could ignore causality--but I suppose there must be SOME way, since there doesn't seem to be any other explanation for the origin of reality.
The answer most commonly given to my query (how could even a time-independant force ignore causality?) is that this higher dimensional force is not truly time independant, but rather has access to an additional time dimension. In this second time dimension, this entity operates according to normal causality--but at the same time is outside of our first time dimension, allowing it to impact us at any point in our timeline, observe the events later in our timeline, and then make more changes at the necessary points in our timeline in order to achieve the desired result. These results could easily appear to occur instantaneously, if this extra-temporal entity can access our entire timeline at once. There would be a ripple effect...remove this item here at this time, and then all future time periods are immediately affected by the removal of that item.
Temporal physics are confusing, aren't they?
Next Theory: Oscillating Bang Theory Similar to Big Bang theory, but alleges that the Bang was caused by the collapse of our previous universe, which was created in a previous Bang, caused by a previous collapse, etc. If these repeating Bangs can be shown to continue for eternity, this becomes C-Class. However, this requires that every bit of matter and energy released in each Bang be recaptured by the next one, or the Bangs will slowly bleed energy. So far no method has been proposed that would allow the recapture of energy radiated into deep space.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 28 2005, 10:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 28 2005, 10:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Temporal physics are confusing, aren't they? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think that pretty much sums up the entirety of the discussion since the bumping of this thread.
<!--QuoteBegin-Apos+Mar 11 2005, 07:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos @ Mar 11 2005, 07:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Equating homosexuality with a handicap isn't going to win you many friends around here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The odd thing is that I have not come across any theories regarding the function of homosexuality. However, an examination of juvanile bovine activities and activities within prisons suggest that seniority is one aspect. Sorry, I havn't had time to read the many posts on this thread.
On another note, PNA-based replication machines are being developed as we speak. Although the environment they are being grown in is artificial, the mechanism could be called life. Watch this space (and the new scientist).
<!--QuoteBegin-Apos+Mar 11 2005, 07:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos @ Mar 11 2005, 07:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marriage as we know it is a cultural development. Evolution doesn't explain it, nor should it have to, at least not directly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sex is one of the more powerful human drives, by saying that sex is not allowed outside a particular ceremony, the persons and institutions responsible for controlling the ceremony become particularly powerful.
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Mar 13 2005, 01:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Mar 13 2005, 01:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I believe in evolution. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And this is where the problems start <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
To say one believes in something absolutely can be a pitfall, on may believe in newtonian physics (stuff moves when you push it), but this doesn't prevent quantum physics from being equally valid and describing a different regime. What we know as science is just the best model yet we have found for describing what we see, it is dangerous to confuse it with the truth.
It is interesting to note that scientific research is somewhat like genetic evolution (please bare with the tortured analogy).
Radical ideas, like radical mutations, are often unsuccessful, either leading to "abnormal" and possibly harmful deformities or in the case of science not accepted or unfounded. I know it's unscientific to say this, but the parallel amuses me.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 13 2005, 04:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 13 2005, 04:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Shorter Lifespans =/= Degradation. Shorter Lifespans are not worse than Longer Lifespans, in an evolutionary sense. People will evolve to have shorter lifespans, only if shorter lifespans increase evolutionary fitness. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know it is subjective, but longer lifespans caused by improved medicine and possibly gene therapy leading to immortality, do not apeal to me tbh. I'm sure they will when I reach 70 thought. Longer lifespans and treatment for self-created problems like smoking and our current fat rich diet will conceptually lead to proliferation of genes with are not adapted to out diet/smoking. This also applies to disease resitance.
I guess resistance will just take longer.
I suspect that at some point in the future, genetic sperm and egg screening will take place before fertalisation as a matter of course. This does present some interesting ethical issues, such as the right of deaf people to be deaf and not be thought of as an abhoration for removal from the genetic chain. Some of the more advanced surgery to improve or recover/allow hearing is frowned upon by some deaf people as an afront to their way of life.
See the movie gattaca for an easilly accessible treatment of this idea.
<!--QuoteBegin-AdamBracegirdle+May 4 2005, 03:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AdamBracegirdle @ May 4 2005, 03:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Apos+Mar 11 2005, 07:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos @ Mar 11 2005, 07:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Equating homosexuality with a handicap isn't going to win you many friends around here. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The odd thing is that I have not come across any theories regarding the function of homosexuality. However, an examination of juvanile bovine activities and activities within prisons suggest that seniority is one aspect. Sorry, I havn't had time to read the many posts on this thread.
On another note, PNA-based replication machines are being developed as we speak. Although the environment they are being grown in is artificial, the mechanism could be called life. Watch this space (and the new scientist). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Beyond the simple male-bonding thing that obviously arises from the sexual attraction, it has been shown that homosexality in animals can be beneficial for the group as a whole. The homosexual individuals, not being shackled by offspring of their own, are free to "babysit" or otherwise improve the development of the offspring of their neighbors.
And no, the fact that it is done in nature doesn't completely justify its inclusion in human society, though it does provide an explanation for where homosexuality comes from. However, the fact that it is done in nature is not exactly a strike _against_ homosexuality, either.
<!--QuoteBegin-Comrad Skulk+May 4 2005, 09:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Comrad Skulk @ May 4 2005, 09:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Just because its done in nature doesn't mean humans should do it....
in nature parents will eat other parent's offspring to increse the chances of their own Genes being passed on. we shouldn't eat each other babies.
if you rationlize your actions based on the arguement that your dog does it. then I guess your arguement isn't exactly all that great <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I assume you are talking about homosexuality, were you replying to me? who knows, quote next time.
Anyway, I was posing the question as to why humans have homosexual urges, not justifying it. Homosexuality exists in human nature, it just does. Whether it is supressed or deemed acceptable in any particular society at any particular time is a deviation from my point. I was not considering other species for justification of homosexual acts and urges, but rather an explaination of them. Discussion of homosexuality in humans comes with a great deal of baggage, so I was hoping examination of other species would help provide more clarity. Apparently I am niave. Anyway, there is another topic up on gayers, so I'll stop talking about it here.
Comments
My argument was that, since Adam and Eve were immortal, and God endowed them with curiosity, they would eventually eat the apple.
I think the same thing applies to your Case B. If God created a universe once, then given an infinite amount of time, he would create an infinite amount of universes. Of course, you can argue that God isn't bound by mathematics, but that's kind of a cop out.
Oh, and I like your sig, by the way. (;
I don't quite get your point here. Enlighten me please?
But my point was that a sentient God wouldn't need to create "1 universe every billion years" or whatever, he could just decide he wanted this one universe...or maybe 2 or 3, I don't know. But since he can actively make independant decisions, rather than simply being a product of influences (like a computer program), he could select some number, and make that many universes. There would be no need for them to continue to accumulate over time.
I don't quite get your point here. Enlighten me please?
But my point was that a sentient God wouldn't need to create "1 universe every billion years" or whatever, he could just decide he wanted this one universe...or maybe 2 or 3, I don't know. But since he can actively make independant decisions, rather than simply being a product of influences (like a computer program), he could select some number, and make that many universes. There would be no need for them to continue to accumulate over time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't have a point. I just found that it's an interesting connection.
However, it would invalidate the comment you made saying that a sentient being would be able to wait, and then create a universe. The sentient being would either make 0 universes or infinite universes, given an infinite amount of time. Thus, there would be an infinite amount of universes before and after ours. Even with a 0.0000000000000001% inclination to make a universe, he'll make an infinite number.
Oh, and I misspoke here...
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't quite get your point here. Enlighten me please?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Change "point" to "logic" in that sentence. I get why you think that conclusion is important, I just dont get how you got that conclusion.
So B-R would result in God making infinite universes, while B-L would result in finite universes. Then lets make B-N the name for the non-sentient Eternal Force case. So B-L gets us some number of universes--it might be 1, it might be 10, whatever, but theres some number. B-R results in infinite universes, and most likely B-N will too (that or 0).
I'm not sure if I'm actually making progress or not, but this is certainly fun. Now let me start writing down some of my findings on C-type theories.
[...]
The problem with category A is that even if you postulate a mechanism by which something might arise from nothing, that mechanism counts as something and you wind up having to reclassify into one of the other categories anyway. So that means all theories of the origin of our particular universe have to be constructed in such a way as to eventually meet the requirements of either category B or C. If you haven't met either of those categories, then the theory hasn't yet reached an explanation for the origin of reality...it might explain other things, but it won't explain the ultimate origin. (actual discussions of B and C class theories to be left for another post) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem I see here is that it is entirely possible for there to have once existed a True Nothing in our perspective of the Universe, while at the same time there was...something...brewing in alternate dimensions. And as long as you assume that there are multiple dimensions, some of which are unable to 'see' others, you might as well assume that some dimensions can "ignore" others. Time, being the fourth dimension, could easily have been "ignored" by whatever existed in the 5th, 6th, etc dimensions that eventually gave rise to the universe. Therefore, in the absence of time, that "whatever" - be it a brane or something even more strange - would have existed for all eternity while at the same time existing for no time at all.
Ok--current astrophysical theories of the universe. This is not a complete list, and leaves room for the introduction of new theories as well as any I've just forgotten. (unlike my 3 categories breakdown, which I am fairly confidant covers all theories)
Big Bang theory: Postulates that all observable matter and energy originated in a single large explosion at the center of the universe, some 13-17 Billion years ago. Very good (though not perfect) at explaining the origin of the observable universe. Makes no attempt to explain the origin of the big bang itself. Therefore not a complete origin theory, without additional supporting theories to justify the presence of a big bang at all.
Brane Theory: Seeks to justify the big bang through collisions of theoretical "branes", which were bouncing around in some 5-Dimensional space prior to our big bang. No direct explanation is given for where these branes come from, and most likely this theory would be classified as B-N type. In this theory a new universe is not "created" by a brane collision, but is rather contained within a brane. Apparently there are two postulated "static branes" that form the boundary of a space where a third brane glides inside, bouncing off the bounding branes occcasionally and triggering violent changes to the 3D material inside the bounding branes that result in spaces like ours. For some reason brane theory has trouble coexisting with the observed acceleration in the expansion of our universe.
(edit: Just to clarify, this is a long list, but I'll only post them about 2 at a time because thats all I have time for. If anyone else wants to add a theory I've forgotten or just haven't gotten around to yet, by all means feel free.)
Under current brane theory, the explanation given for our 4-space Big Bang is that the mobile brane collided with our brane, and the collision added energy to the contact point in our brane, heating it up enough to cause a Big Bang explosion. However, that requires that the energy added to our brane be subtracted from the mobile brane. While this works fine for the 1st collision, the 2nd collision, and maybe even the 1000th collision, eventually the mobile brane will be drained of energy and stop moving. This method cannot therefore reach infinity, and does not qualify as a B-N theory. There must be an additional origin prior to the branes.
Next theory: Dual Bang theory. The discovery of certain objects that appear to be too far away to have reached their current positions in the time since our initial Big Bang has prompted the development of the Dual Bang theory. This postulates that rather than 1 Big Bang, there were 2, in separate regions of space. (the theory leaves open the possibility of additional ones, but has no evidence for more than 2 at this point). Otherwise very similar to Big Bang theory, except that it is even worse as an Ultimate Origin theory, since any force that <i>might</i> randomly produce one Big Bang would be hard pressed to create two, and in relatively close temporal proximity. It also disallows the idea of the Big Bang producing space as well as mass, as there must be enough space initially to have room for two disparate Bang events. This makes it much more difficult for dual bang theory to explain Cosmic Background Radiation.
Many Bang Theory: In an attempt to dodge the need for an Ultimate Origin, the C class Many Bang Theory proposes that our universe is much larger than the observed universe, and contains many regions similar to our own, each produced by a separate Bang. As the matter from these bangs expands, it is devoured by super-massive black holes that eventually grow to an unstable size, detonating to serve as a new Big Bang. In this way matter is continually recycled through a series of Big Bangs that could theoretically continue for eternity. The gravitational pull from these other Bang-regions does a nice job of accounting for the acceleration in our own regions expansion. However, Many Bang Theory has no way of accounting for Cosmic Background Radiation (at least so far).
I'm sorry, I completely missed your post until just now. Must have been cause I was in progress of writing my own long post when you posted this.
Indeed, that is a problem. For purity's sake though, that can't count as Class A. Simply because we can't observe or even interact with these other dimensions with other stuff in them doesn't mean they don't invalidate the "nothing" clause. Any theory suggesting this is going to be either B or C class.
If there is a God, I suspect that this is as close of a scientific description as we're going to get of how he works. B-L class fits with this description quite nicely. There are probably some C class theories that take advantage of it too, although I don't know of any offhand.
I personally have a hard time grasping how, even if something existed outside of a time dimension, it could ignore causality--but I suppose there must be SOME way, since there doesn't seem to be any other explanation for the origin of reality.
The answer most commonly given to my query (how could even a time-independant force ignore causality?) is that this higher dimensional force is not truly time independant, but rather has access to an additional time dimension. In this second time dimension, this entity operates according to normal causality--but at the same time is outside of our first time dimension, allowing it to impact us at any point in our timeline, observe the events later in our timeline, and then make more changes at the necessary points in our timeline in order to achieve the desired result. These results could easily appear to occur instantaneously, if this extra-temporal entity can access our entire timeline at once. There would be a ripple effect...remove this item here at this time, and then all future time periods are immediately affected by the removal of that item.
Temporal physics are confusing, aren't they?
Next Theory: Oscillating Bang Theory
Similar to Big Bang theory, but alleges that the Bang was caused by the collapse of our previous universe, which was created in a previous Bang, caused by a previous collapse, etc. If these repeating Bangs can be shown to continue for eternity, this becomes C-Class. However, this requires that every bit of matter and energy released in each Bang be recaptured by the next one, or the Bangs will slowly bleed energy. So far no method has been proposed that would allow the recapture of energy radiated into deep space.
I think that pretty much sums up the entirety of the discussion since the bumping of this thread.
The odd thing is that I have not come across any theories regarding the function of homosexuality. However, an examination of juvanile bovine activities and activities within prisons suggest that seniority is one aspect. Sorry, I havn't had time to read the many posts on this thread.
On another note, PNA-based replication machines are being developed as we speak. Although the environment they are being grown in is artificial, the mechanism could be called life. Watch this space (and the new scientist).
Sex is one of the more powerful human drives, by saying that sex is not allowed outside a particular ceremony, the persons and institutions responsible for controlling the ceremony become particularly powerful.
And this is where the problems start <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
To say one believes in something absolutely can be a pitfall, on may believe in newtonian physics (stuff moves when you push it), but this doesn't prevent quantum physics from being equally valid and describing a different regime. What we know as science is just the best model yet we have found for describing what we see, it is dangerous to confuse it with the truth.
It is interesting to note that scientific research is somewhat like genetic evolution (please bare with the tortured analogy).
Radical ideas, like radical mutations, are often unsuccessful, either leading to "abnormal" and possibly harmful deformities or in the case of science not accepted or unfounded. I know it's unscientific to say this, but the parallel amuses me.
I know it is subjective, but longer lifespans caused by improved medicine and possibly gene therapy leading to immortality, do not apeal to me tbh. I'm sure they will when I reach 70 thought. Longer lifespans and treatment for self-created problems like smoking and our current fat rich diet will conceptually lead to proliferation of genes with are not adapted to out diet/smoking. This also applies to disease resitance.
I guess resistance will just take longer.
I suspect that at some point in the future, genetic sperm and egg screening will take place before fertalisation as a matter of course. This does present some interesting ethical issues, such as the right of deaf people to be deaf and not be thought of as an abhoration for removal from the genetic chain. Some of the more advanced surgery to improve or recover/allow hearing is frowned upon by some deaf people as an afront to their way of life.
See the movie gattaca for an easilly accessible treatment of this idea.
Heh Just noticed, nucleotides:
GATTACA
CTAATGT
in nature parents will eat other parent's offspring to increse the chances of their own Genes being passed on. we shouldn't eat each other babies.
if you rationlize your actions based on the arguement that your dog does it. then I guess your arguement isn't exactly all that great
The odd thing is that I have not come across any theories regarding the function of homosexuality. However, an examination of juvanile bovine activities and activities within prisons suggest that seniority is one aspect. Sorry, I havn't had time to read the many posts on this thread.
On another note, PNA-based replication machines are being developed as we speak. Although the environment they are being grown in is artificial, the mechanism could be called life. Watch this space (and the new scientist). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Beyond the simple male-bonding thing that obviously arises from the sexual attraction, it has been shown that homosexality in animals can be beneficial for the group as a whole. The homosexual individuals, not being shackled by offspring of their own, are free to "babysit" or otherwise improve the development of the offspring of their neighbors.
And no, the fact that it is done in nature doesn't completely justify its inclusion in human society, though it does provide an explanation for where homosexuality comes from. However, the fact that it is done in nature is not exactly a strike _against_ homosexuality, either.
in nature parents will eat other parent's offspring to increse the chances of their own Genes being passed on. we shouldn't eat each other babies.
if you rationlize your actions based on the arguement that your dog does it. then I guess your arguement isn't exactly all that great <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I assume you are talking about homosexuality, were you replying to me? who knows, quote next time.
Anyway, I was posing the question as to why humans have homosexual urges, not justifying it. Homosexuality exists in human nature, it just does. Whether it is supressed or deemed acceptable in any particular society at any particular time is a deviation from my point. I was not considering other species for justification of homosexual acts and urges, but rather an explaination of them. Discussion of homosexuality in humans comes with a great deal of baggage, so I was hoping examination of other species would help provide more clarity. Apparently I am niave. Anyway, there is another topic up on gayers, so I'll stop talking about it here.
no