OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
ROFL. This is the lamest excuse I ever heard. You may take a cigar. Ever heard of auto-shoot cameras? Where you set up a few seconds timer and go "cheese"? Even cheapest soapbox cameras have it these days.

Yes, but this still necessitates I have somebody or something *AIM* and *HOLD* the camera. They don't just hover in the air, you know.

---

Of course, I understand. I should reilize that puting the camera on the floor, and aiming it at your fictional T34 with the help of a book or two, is way too complecated for your IQ level. My appologies.

[Jack Simth]

Either a few of the fundamental laws of physics are wrong, we are sitting at a rediculously improbable (chance n/infinity = 0) point in history, the universe doesn't exit, or God (not necessarily of any specific form) does - I even have a proof for it:

Consider: Entropy and Conservation of energy, and the universe as it seems to exist:
1) Energy is always conserved
2) Entropy always increases
3) there is both energy and order in the universe as it exists today.
4) (1) implies that the energy of the universe (using the widest, most inclusive possible definition of the universe) must be of infinite age.
Justification: energy is conserved -> the energy that is somewhere at time X must also have been somewhere at time X-1. However, as X is an arbitrary varaible, mathematical induction applies; if energy exists now, it existed at now-1, now-2, now-3, ..., all the way back to now-infinity. Thus, the energy of the universe must be of infinite age.
5) (2) and (4) imply that one of the following is true: A) after an infinite amount of time, entropy should have reached a maximum, excluding order, and thus there should be no measureable order left in the energy of the universe. B) Entropy is on some form of infinitive, and the change in entropy is only measureable for some finite segment of the infinity, which we just happen to be in.
6) as (5a) contradicts (3), it must be false if (1), (2), and (3) are true. As (5b) has a probability of some finite number over an infinite number, it has a probability of 0. Thus, (5b) must be false if (1), (2), and (3) are true. Thus there is a contradiction among (1), (2), and (3).

Given the contradiction above, one of the following must be true:
1) We are at a probability 0 section of time.
2) There is no energy in the universe (a.k.a., the universe doesn't exist).
3) One of the fundamental laws of physicis (either conservation of energy or entropy) is false.
4) Some being which can ignore the laws of physics (God) exists.

Please, discuss.

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

Consider: Entropy and Conservation of energy, and the universe as it seems to exist:
1) Energy is always conserved
2) Entropy always increases

I believe that none of the conservation laws are held to have operated at T=0 (the Big Bang)

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Given the contradiction above, one of the following must be true:
1) We are at a probability 0 section of time.
2) There is no energy in the universe (a.k.a., the universe doesn't exist).
3) One of the fundamental laws of physicis (either conservation of energy or entropy) is false.
4) Some being which can ignore the laws of physics (God) exists.

I'm going to go with 3. The "fundamental laws" of physics, as it is, is simply something that we've fabricated based on empirical observation. It is, by no means, inviolate: If empirical observation in the future refutes these laws as being incomplete, as has happened in the past, we'll acquire some new understanding of how things work.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Even if there is only a .0000000001% chance that God does exist is more then enough reason to do what's right or risk burning in Hell eternally.

I couldn't resist responding to this one, since it's the exact fallacy parodied by my signature :-)

It is a mistake to apply the mathematics of probability to existential questions. In this case, that's easily demonstrated by proposing the existence of a different god (who I shall call Frank) who is the real creator of the Universe, and whose will happens to be the exact opposite of the will we attribute to Jehovah. By making up an associated scripture that is more plausible and consistent than the Bible, I could even argue that Frank's "probability of existence" exceeds Jehovah's.

So now, what do we do? Avoid the risk of offending Jehovah, or do the exact opposite to avoid offending Frank?

---

LOL. Good argument Zap. Also it reminds me of old existential discussion that we had several mounths ago.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
Do you guys never sleep or spend your time anywhere else?

Rarely.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Of course, I understand. I should reilize that puting the camera on the floor, and aiming it at your fictional T34 with the help of a book or two, is way too complecated for your IQ level. My appologies.

What, on the floor? Then the only thing you're going to get a picture of is my feet! Besides, what exactly would you have me *DO* with these pictures? I'm not wasting the film just so I can mail you pictures of my feet.