flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > sleepsleep's vitally important things

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 98, 99, 100 ... 245, 246, 247  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
you're the one rejecting a Creator for lack of proof or evidence, when you believe such sci-fi nonsense that falls into the exact same category
I have already told you that the sci-fi movie stuff was meant to be a joke.

Nope. I reject the notion of a creator because it does not make sense to me. Eternal existence of an omnipotent creator and nothing else? The creator gets bored and thus creates something for fun?

The only idea that makes sense to me is the eternal existence of "nothingness", which has one and only one intrinsic property -- instability. (I guess that you know the rest of my idea.)

Wink
Post 02 Aug 2017, 13:21
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
When I say sci-fi stuff I mean the interdimensional worm holes / portals and stuff like that; not any movie. Confused

"Eternal" is not such a weird term btw. There was no time (as we know it) before the Big Bang, so it's a decent word to use for stuff outside our perception of time. Likewise for omnipotent, the creator could just be a programmer who can debug his PC and thus know everything, not that he's the "benevolent" God in religion.

"Nothingness" makes no sense at all to me without a creator. How can stuff get created (spacetime, matter, etc) from nothing without any source? It's illogical based on our experiences. Even if the creator wasn't a "self aware" being, it must still have been something (which probably also had a creator by itself down the road; chain of creators).

YONG wrote:
I don't think that you understand English. "Never look back", in that context, means "forget about the past". I mean that the traveler should forget about his/her past and embrace the future.
Embrace the Heat Death of the Universe? The "future" is grim, not bright. There would be no useable Universe for him to return to, outside the Black Hole.
Post 02 Aug 2017, 14:11
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Furs wrote:
chain of creators

does it makes sense if we need to have chain of creators in order to have creators, thus having some sort of answer for how can stuff get created at first?

Furs wrote:

It connects the same spacetime. It's like you bend a sheet of paper and connect it at the same spot backwards.

so space itself have shape and border?

Furs wrote:
you'd have to find a new term and different math for it

imo, since 1 and 0 are the basic of everything, and probably there can't exists different math than the one we know and use right now, i guess.

YONG wrote:
sleepsleep wrote:
i always appreciate all the kindness people sent to me in this forum, especially my drawings, Laughing thanks and thanks a lot, Embarassed from the bottom of my heart, Wink
It is too late. No-one will respond to your drawings any more.

Evil or Very Mad

you should grow your gas, Wink

YONG wrote:

I reject the notion of a creator because it does not make sense to me

so we have nothing, out of nothing, then come something? is like 0 + 0 suddenly we got 0.1 then the number starts to grow?
Post 02 Aug 2017, 16:48
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
sleepsleep wrote:
does it makes sense if we need to have chain of creators in order to have creators, thus having some sort of answer for how can stuff get created at first?
Honestly, no idea there. But I mean, if we assume such theory is correct, we aren't even aware how the first "outside world" goes (our most immediate creator's world), so asking such question is kind of... far-fetched Wink I have obviously zero idea how even the first creator's world is.

sleepsleep wrote:
so space itself have shape and border?
Yes, of course. Not sure about "border" though, since it keeps expanding, and shape could be circular (though it was proven it's likely not) meaning you go at one end and arrive at the other (in a loop).

Worm Holes aren't "real" in the sense that they were observed, just hypothesized. Note that the data shows the Universe is almost perfectly flat AFAIK, so it's very unlikely Worm Holes would ever exist anyway.

sleepsleep wrote:
imo, since 1 and 0 are the basic of everything, and probably there can't exists different math than the one we know and use right now, i guess.
Well yeah lol, I was talking about math equations, not math itself, my bad wording Wink
Post 02 Aug 2017, 21:49
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
It's illogical based on our experiences.
Lots of the quantum phenomena look illogical to us, based on our daily life experiences.

Example 1: A famous scientist once described the notion of quantum entanglement as "a spooky action at a distance". But now we are certain that quantum entanglement truly exists.

Example 2: Shouldn't everything "freeze" or become stationary at absolute zero? Yet, the wave nature of matter says "no" to such a notion. Refer to:

Zero-point Energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Eternal existence of nothingness is the only idea that actually makes sense.

1. Its intrinsic instability gives rise to creation of matter and antimatter (and space).

2. The existence of matter and antimatter, in turn, stabilizes nothingness.

3. Time never stands still for matter and antimatter. Eventually, matter and antimatter annihilate each other and regenerate energy.

4. Without matter and antimatter, the intrinsic instability of nothingness returns and gives rise to creation again.

5. And the process just repeats itself indefinitely.

Wink
Post 03 Aug 2017, 02:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
you should grow your gas, Wink
What do you mean by "gas"? Gasoline? Fuel?

Rolling Eyes
Post 03 Aug 2017, 02:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
so we have nothing, out of nothing, then come something?
Why would "anything" exist in the first place?

Rolling Eyes
Post 03 Aug 2017, 03:00
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
YONG wrote:
1. Its intrinsic instability gives rise to creation of matter and antimatter (and space).
This is the part I don't really understand (of what you mean by "nothingness"). Mind sharing a link/video or anything where you read it so I can peek at the details? Cause now I'm interested.
Post 03 Aug 2017, 10:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
YONG wrote:

What do you mean by "gas"? Gasoline? Fuel?

small gas grow to bigger gas, maybe, Wink

Furs wrote:
sleepsleep wrote:
does it makes sense if we need to have chain of creators in order to have creators, thus having some sort of answer for how can stuff get created at first?
Honestly, no idea there. But I mean, if we assume such theory is correct, we aren't even aware how the first "outside world" goes (our most immediate creator's world), so asking such question is kind of... far-fetched Wink I have obviously zero idea how even the first creator's world is.

i have issue if initially, there is nothing, the somehow, bang, nothing become something,

probably there are something, and there always are something, which don't have beginning, idk how to screw my mind on this,
Post 03 Aug 2017, 10:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
YONG wrote:
What do you mean by "gas"? Gasoline? Fuel?
small gas grow to bigger gas, maybe, Wink
If you are talking about fuel, the answer is yes -- we can "grow" fuel. Refer to:

Biofuel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel

Wink
Post 03 Aug 2017, 12:31
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
YONG wrote:
1. Its intrinsic instability gives rise to creation of matter and antimatter (and space).
This is the part I don't really understand (of what you mean by "nothingness"). Mind sharing a link/video or anything where you read it so I can peek at the details? Cause now I'm interested.
By "nothingness", I refer to "the pre-creation void" where there is absolutely nothing but instability -- which can be taken as the only intrinsic property of the void itself. We may just treat the intrinsic instability as some kind of random energy fluctuation.

Well, it is actually my own idea. But the very first part of the idea -- random fluctuation in the pre-creation void -- seems to be generally accepted by many scientific minds.

Refer to:

Why Does The Universe Exist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBQbVH7T6JY

Wink
Post 03 Aug 2017, 12:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
The video is pretty interesting (well and slightly funny Wink) but his notion of "nothingness" is in space(time), so technically he's talking about fields in QFT which require spacetime.

I guess the only thing that could spawn out of literally nothing are the "spacetime bubbles" he mentioned. I have to admit it's the first time I hear of such a concept/theory.

But since those spacetime bubbles are spawned by effects from a quantum effect in another spacetime, they all share the same laws of physics. So how did the code (laws) form then, cause that's the most important Razz
Post 03 Aug 2017, 13:51
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i caught something funny in my mind a moment ago,

you see, we trying so hard, to find real human who really could communicate with god, shiva, jesus, alah, etc,

but what we did to such people when we found them, (those who claim they really could converse with god)

we lock them up in mental asylums, yes, they insisted they are really having conversation with god, but we claim all those conversations are nothing but illusion, Wink

human is funny, Laughing

you think those who hold position in church, mosque, temple etc religious places, dare to claim they could communicate with god?

since they can't communicate with god, they are just like us,

why the hell they are holding rank in those places, and give instructions how da proper way to talk to god?

this shit is real funny, Laughing
Post 03 Aug 2017, 17:29
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
we lock them up in mental asylums
No, we don't. Just look at you. You are still free.

Wink
Post 04 Aug 2017, 05:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
why the hell they are holding rank in those places, and give instructions how da proper way to talk to god?
Because many people want or need spiritual guidance. When there is demand, there is supply. As simple as that.

Wink
Post 04 Aug 2017, 05:06
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
For those who are interested in the question of whether there is anything outside the observable universe, here is the answer based on some controversial evidence:

Dark Flow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgdNBQCdhdA

Wink
Post 04 Aug 2017, 05:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
since those spacetime bubbles are spawned by effects from a quantum effect in another spacetime, they all share the same laws of physics.
If quantum bubbles are the fruits of the quantum effects of another spacetime, there must be an eternal spacetime that is the first. But I don't like such an idea because it suggests that the fundamental constants and physical laws of the first spacetime are so "special" that intelligent life-forms can eventually emerge from one of the daughter spacetimes. For me, such an idea is too good to be true.

I would stick to my idea that there is an eternal pre-creation void with nothing but intrinsic instability.

Wink
Post 04 Aug 2017, 05:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
I have no complaints for the fact that there is a "first", because any theory whatsoever, even one with creators, requires a "first" thing. To me, such questions are fruitless, because it's like trying to figure out nuclear physics when you don't even know basic math.

That's not the problem with it, though. I'm talking about the laws of physics themselves.

Spacetime bubbles get created, but why do they get created? Because X, Y, Z -- all these reasons means they obey certain logic/laws. So, what created those laws? Even the "inherent instability" of the void/nothingness follows laws which give rise to its instability in the first place.

Again, since we're programmers, I'm asking what created the code for the Universe, not the data.
Post 04 Aug 2017, 11:23
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
Even the "inherent instability" of the void/nothingness follows laws which give rise to its instability in the first place.
I would say that the inherent instability is a truly-random "thing" that does not follow any deterministic law. If so, each of the created quantum bubbles will be unique. The vast majority of the created universes will have "insane" fundamental constants and physical laws and thus will never give rise to intelligent life-forms. Only a tiny fraction of the created universes will be life-nurturing. See, everything makes sense.

Wink
Post 04 Aug 2017, 12:51
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
Well those are different kind of bubbles then. It doesn't really make sense for the bubbles to spawn other bubbles, since each bubble in that description has its own laws of physics -- it is truly unrelated to any other bubble. Thus one can't really create another.

(if it can, then why only certain laws can create other bubbles and what happens with "dead ends", bubbles which have laws that can't create other bubbles?)
Post 04 Aug 2017, 14:04
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 98, 99, 100 ... 245, 246, 247  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.