Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penguinofhonor]

Eh, who can actually comprehend the size of the universe?

I get scared when I realize that everything is so vastly separate, so far away, that it wouldn't even be physically possible for me to see any of the stuff near us in person. And then I realize that something like the space between galaxies is so many times vaster, and the space between galaxy clusters moreso... fuck.

[Frumple]

I look up at the sky and generally end up with a massive headache due to information overload. Darkness is multicolored and moves. The stars help, some (for all that the little bastards are constantly changing color *fistshake*), and it's not as bad during fuller moons, but it's always kinda' painful. Mind you, blue sky is exponentially worse (darting whitish specks, everywhere, ahaha!). About the only time I can look up outside without it starting to hurt is heavily overcast days, humdedoo.

Existential wise, the other solar systems don't really ding my radar. They're neat in an abstract way, and definitely aesthetically pleasing, both physically and conceptually, but until they or something interacting meaningfully with them are within my light cone I'm just not terrible concerned. I want for humans to be there when the last one dies, but that's about it.

Eh, who can actually comprehend the size of the universe?

I get scared when I realize that everything is so vastly separate, so far away, that it wouldn't even be physically possible for me to see any of the stuff near us in person. And then I realize that something like the space between galaxies is so many times vaster, and the space between galaxy clusters moreso... fuck.

Wanna' have some real fun? Try to imagine the possibility of distance between pre-big bang singularities. I've still not quite wrapped my head around whether that's actually precluded by our mostly-current conceptualization of astrophysics (I.e. The "scientific creation myth" ). And if it's not, well. Well.

[MaximumZero]

Wait, we have pre-big-bang models? News to me. I'd like to see, if that's possible.

[Frumple]

Well, in a very, very, very loose sense. Supposedly there's this... singularity thing. Or something. I got it mostly second hand. But anyway. Actual full-universe or whatev' singularity is something I have trouble grokking. It's a pretty simple question, "Why can't there be another one <arbitrary distance> away?"

Sure, the question's totally irrelevant if the distance is sufficient to preclude the possibility of interaction (including the sort of interaction we call observation), but...

[MaximumZero]

Point taken. Hey, what if the universe is spherical, and we're just riding the inside of the sphere until we hit together and cause a big crunch, leading back to another big bang?

I know that the models for the universe put it as saddle shaped or toroidal, but maybe the shape is just uneven or we aren't thinking big enough yet?

[Reudh]

Mostly when it comes to other galaxies or distant stars I just think "There's no point wondering about them; if there's life it will never see us and we'll never see it; least not within my lifetime."


I'd much rather ponder the human race than what may or may not be out there.

Point taken. Hey, what if the universe is spherical, and we're just riding the inside of the sphere until we hit together and cause a big crunch, leading back to another big bang?

I know that the models for the universe put it as saddle shaped or toroidal, but maybe the shape is just uneven or we aren't thinking big enough yet?

The shape is uneven, from what I think at least. It cannot be a regular shape; that would violate our theory that dark matter fuels expansion.

In some areas of the universe, space is beginning to collapse and Crunch, because of a lack of dark matter. In other areas it is expanding, due to a higher concentration of dark matter.

What is observable to us forms a roughly spherical shape; but that's only because a sphere represents all directions.

The universe in my mind, forms a spherical shape at a macro level, but different areas are in states of wax and wane.

[MaximumZero]

So, over huge timescales, trillions and trillions of years, the universe would look like a kaleidoscope?

[Reudh]

I suppose, if one were able to view it in a very macro way.

I think it would be more or less look like very bright lights twinkling across the sky and very tiny, barely detectable fisheye effects happening in some areas and the opposite in some others and yet others staying stable.

[Megaman]

Only God/the aliens/whatever deity you believe in/no one probably knows what will happen in trillions of years. Science today will probably be found to have huge holes in it and be laughed at by elementary school students at some point in human history.

[MrWiggles]

Yea, but that largely doesn't matter. We dont point at the Newton and laugh at his misunderstandings today. So I find it unlikely we'll do the same in the future.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I might laugh at his belief in alchemy, but the physics were about as good as one could expect someone from his time period to have.

[MrWiggles]

Alchemically was legit during Newtons time. It was starting to make the transition into modern chemistry around then, but still very magical.

[Vattic]

Me personally: I look up at the sky and try and comprehend the massive expanse that is the universe and then my brain hurts and I look away.

We've moved past this point a bit but personally I love how small it makes me feel. Anything in nature that makes me feel this way is wonderful.

[Flare]

Science has proof, and also pokes a bunch of holes in the whole god thing, but humans and animals seem to have souls.

Elaborate.

Well, you've seen roadkill. How is it that each individual piece of roadkill was once a living breathing animal that had its own quirks and habits and likes and dislikes? Same question for a graveyard of dead humans. How can they all be so different? I'm sure we could go all science with it and say something along the lines of, 'Its all brain chemistry and cell position in the CNS', but I don't think that fully explains it.

Our current understanding might not fully explain it, but this is no reason to resort to the conclusion that we have souls. Your argument only goes so far as to say that maybe our current understanding of the brain does not explain all behaviour in creatures that have them.

For you to reach the conclusion that you hold, there would have to be more premises before the conclusion stating that souls give variation, and souls provide consciousness. Neither of which is an unquestionable assumption. It is entirely correct to say that our systematic inquiry in this field is limited, but so is our knowledge of what exactly a soul is, or that which we don't really know anything about. What is a soul? Does it have boundaries? How does it react with the body? We have great difficulty coming to a consensus about the qualitative description of souls, and not only that the quantitative ones too. How do we know we only have one soul, or that we don't switch out souls all the time, or maybe we're sharing several souls with multiple people at the same time?

[Yoink]

*Didn't read the 5 previous pages*

All religious arguments are silly.
I believe in both Religion and Christianity: God created monkeys, and it all went downhill from there.