Spring RTS Engine

re: this thread

body: isn't rampant speculation wonderful?

How am i supposed to Fap to this shit thread?

Teutooni wrote:

manored wrote:Why would the universe suddently exist with 3, 4 or 5 basic elements? However 2 is the number that makes the greater sense, since its the minimum amount of elements necessary for anything to exist.

Why would the universe suddenly exist at all? We know too little about the fundamentals of existance to really argue. It's a matter of belief.

Besides, like car pointed out, isn't unary the simplest possible? An example: Let's say * is the symbol for this unary thing. * equals nothing. ** equals 1, *** equals 2 and so on. There would be 1 of this... thing... in every 'point' in the universe, and more where there is energy/matter/whatever.

It feels counterintuitive to represent nothingness with something, but meh. Scientists are not sure if vacuum is really empty, or even the lowest possible energy state. Again, we know too little.

Precisely a matter of belief. It is very interesting that scientists don't know what space is, though we know that one square centimeter of space contains more energy than what there available in the entire planet earth.

NASA has proposed plans to build dark matter engines which use this energy in innovative ways to propel spacecraft. It is amazing the amount of ignorance the general populance has towards this provoking subject.

My personal frustration is with christians who profess to believe the bible but have no understanding of particle physics or what experiments have shown in dealing with dimensions higher than the third or fourth.

The bible says he who seeks finds, he who knocks the door shall be opened. However it goes on to say that you will look but find stuff other than what you are looking for, and this is the path of knowledge.

Particle physicists come up with theories, but without insight, eg. prior knowledge of whats there, (eg. faith) their experiments end up being largely unfruitful.

Einstein had knowledge ahead of his time, and his theories have largely been proven true 50 years after his death.

One other thing the bible says is that the Lord will show you things unspeakable and unsearchable, my feeling is that if people took the bible seriously, they would realize that this is what we're up against, that is, a subject that is basically unsearchable and very difficult to communicate knowledge about it.

The subject is so hard the Europeans are building a massive particle accelerator in order to isolate particles outside of time. And scientists are still frustrated because they are up against a wall where nothing they theorize makes sense.

It's a joke really. The more they find the more they realize we don't know and what we think we know is wrong.

As a result none of these results make headlines because they are inconclusive.

So what do you do? There is no way to construct an argument based on experimental results to live your life on.

But people try do this. They try say the universe came from nothing and that we will cease to exist as a being when we die.

So these experiments fail.

I'll tell you what doesn't phail though. If anyone here has paid any attention to some of the scriptures of the bible

we see some interesting words.

'In the end, the heavenly (read: spacial bodies) bodies will be shaken, and men will shake with terror being APPREHENSIVE of what is coming upon the earth.'

We see movies like Asteroid coming out.

'There will be famine, earthquake'

Tsunami on the european continent was caused by an underwater earthquake. North america has seen famine (depression 30's) and may see it again. We are warned about it by authorities on the subject.

'There will be wars and rumors of wars.'

Well, duh shit. Need I say anything about this phrase.

'The moon will turn to blood, the stars will fall from the sky, the heavens(read, sky) will roll up like a scroll.'

This is exactly what a thermonuclear warhead makes the sky look like when it goes off. (read. soviet nuclear experiment mid '60's) Is it not possible that heat from such an event could distort the stars in the sky to look like they are falling?

'A third of the earth will be destroyed by fire, a third of the fish in the sea will die, a third of the trees on the earth will be burned.'

Well that sounds like an apocalypse to me.

souledge wrote:

manored wrote:

souledge wrote:I'd say the universe is much simpler when you say it's made of one thing - Energy. You can't break energy up into anything simpler, so I think I've just destroyed your theory.

Your entire theory seems to rely on representing everything in binary, which makes no sense. You're basically saying every number, therefore thing, is representable in binary, therefore the universe is made of binary, therefore anything in the universe is either black or white. This might make sense, but it doesn't matter what base you're in and there's nothing special about base 2 or any base.

Actual, you are endorsing it: energy is one thing, empty spaces are the other.

"Empty spaces" is just a measure of energy (no energy), so it's just energy.

All you seem to be doing is taking energy and splitting and converting it into a binary representation.

Empty spaces arent just a measure of energy, they are what there is where there is no energy... if there were not empty spaces, energy would have to be everwhere (cause there are no empty spaces) and if ever point of the universe is equal to ever other point, there is no universe.

Its because of the fact that we dont really know anything that I am basing my teories about the fundament in logic (because math cannot possibly be wrong).

I wouldn't be making the assumption that math can't possibly be wrong. As soon as you say that you are making an error about things you don't know.

Math cannot possibly be wrong because if it is wrong existence becomes impossible: 2+2 can never be diferent from 4 because if you say you have 5 things for ever 4 you have, that means the universe is filled with that stuff...

Things that we cannot understand matematically now will be understandeable in the future, and in the same manner new things will aparear that we wont understand at a first moment.

manored wrote:Empty spaces arent just a measure of energy, they are what there is where there is no energy... if there were not empty spaces, energy would have to be everwhere (cause there are no empty spaces) and if ever point of the universe is equal to ever other point, there is no universe.

Its because of the fact that we dont really know anything that I am basing my teories about the fundament in logic (because math cannot possibly be wrong).

All sets include the empty set. This is fundamental to set theory, so my assertion is still correct.

manored wrote: 2+2 can never be diferent from 4 because if you say you have 5 things for ever 4 you have, that means the universe is filled with that stuff...

Only in the set of real numbers is this true. With imaginary numbers 2+2 can equal 5.

souledge wrote:

manored wrote: 2+2 can never be diferent from 4 because if you say you have 5 things for ever 4 you have, that means the universe is filled with that stuff...

Only in the set of real numbers is this true. With imaginary numbers 2+2 can equal 5.

Pretty sure the whole point of the word "imaginary" is to protray the fact that it does not exist in the universe....

Complex numbers are just a different way of handling vectors. Quaternions are fairly useful for real world applications.

Anyway, math is independent of the universe, it is created by defining things and 2+2=4 because that's how + is defined. Trying to derive real facts from math (not math used to compute real cases, the raw definition of math) is like trying to derive real facts from language (you'll see that in some older philosophy texts). You cannot analyze the world just by dissecting made-up constructs, you can merely use these constructs to model parts of the world and thus understand it better.

Empty space with zero energy does not exist AFAIK. There's always a nonzero possibility for energy to occupy a given position as long as it is within the lightcone of the big bang. If you want to go with your "math cannot be wrong" approach try mapping out the probability of nearby photons. Energy is not everywhere but it COULD be everywhere and it's not going to decide until you look.

EDIT: Also, http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/krauss0 ... index.html

Final wrote:How am i supposed to Fap to this shit thread?

well, i invoke rule #34

i need porn of self-important people arguing things about the nature of the universe.

souledge wrote:

manored wrote:Empty spaces arent just a measure of energy, they are what there is where there is no energy... if there were not empty spaces, energy would have to be everwhere (cause there are no empty spaces) and if ever point of the universe is equal to ever other point, there is no universe.

Its because of the fact that we dont really know anything that I am basing my teories about the fundament in logic (because math cannot possibly be wrong).

All sets include the empty set. This is fundamental to set theory, so my assertion is still correct.

All sets include the empty set because that is a necessary part. In that way of thinking I could say a chessboard has only one color because the black is just empty space...

Dragon45 wrote:

Final wrote:How am i supposed to Fap to this shit thread?

well, i invoke rule #34

i need porn of self-important people arguing things about the nature of the universe.

I knew someone would eventually give this argument :) I actually only wanted to discover about what everones opinion on the matter would be.

KDR if we cant count something or determine its position you say it can be ANYWHERE, not everwhere. If it was everwhere we wouldnt be here, cause there wouldnt be space :)

Well I give up of arguing about stuff here, seens like I cant get people to understand that I am not speaking about the universe as we perceive it, but as it can not be diferent from regardeless of anything.

As the degrees of freedom of a particle are the product of all the degrees of freedom of its sub-particles, were a particle to have infinite subdivisions into lower-level particles, then the degrees of freedom of the original particle must be infinite, violating the maximal limit of entropy density. The holographic principle thus implies that the subdivisions must stop at some level, and that the fundamental particle is a bit (1 or 0) of information.

Fap Fap Fap Fap

manored wrote:KDR if we cant count something or determine its position[/b] you say it can be ANYWHERE, not everwhere. If it was everwhere we wouldnt be here, cause there wouldnt be space :)

Non-sequitur. Why would there not be space if every position was filled?

You're missing why the quantum destroys your duality: It makes it impossible to designate any spot as full or empty space because the quantum does not occupy a specific position in space, it just has a chance to occupy them.

Furthermore, virtual particles.

Conclusion: The Universe is made of Qubits "painted" on a 2D surface!

Next problem!

Re: Scratch

dear christian
you are a retard.
thanks

I speak about duality in a philosopic level, that is, making the oposite way. Anyhow in the quantum teory: We cannot determine it, but it has to be determined at some level, because a quantum has to take some time to start or cease to exist at some point because, if it did not, time, and thus us, would not exist. If it takes some time for it to start or cease to exist this means that there is a time-gap for something else to be where it is not.