Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: mriver8 on 30/09/2014 23:18:15
-
My theory is everything exists because it is the opposite of nothing which is nothing. Feel free to steal. :)
-
My theory is everything exists because it is the opposite of nothing which is nothing. Feel free to steal. :)
That's not a theory. That's an hypothesis with nothing observed in nature to support it. That makes it meaningless.
-
My theory is everything exists because it is the opposite of nothing which is nothing. Feel free to steal. :)
That's not a theory. That's an hypothesis with nothing observed in nature to support it. That makes it meaningless.
No it is for you to go out and investigate.
-
My theory is everything exists because it is the opposite of nothing which is nothing. Feel free to steal. :)
This is not a theory, it is an irrational statement. Quote: "it is the opposite of nothing which is nothing."
I suggest that you learn to compose a rational sentence before you launch any attempt to define a new theory.
-
Sorry my first language in cantonese sir.
-
Sorry my first language in cantonese sir.
I beg your pardon, I wasn't aware of that fact. And I wasn't trying to insult you either my friend. I just found the statement very confusing and irrational.
Welcome to our forum mriver8.......................Ethos
-
Thank you very much mister.
-
But why should there be a symmetry between stuff and nothing? The theory is unfounded.
And since nothing is unbounded, there should either be an infinity or an infinitesimal amount of something. But there isn't - the universe has a finite density of stuff interspersed with large bits of nothing. Hence the theory is unfounded and invalid.
-
No because there are infinite realities, and you speak of nothing as if it were something. Look at a ruler for example it isn't infinite in both directions it's only one foot, but this doesn't mean they are one foot everywhere. They are longer, and shorter elsewhere. I think there are infinite rulers of infinite length, and infinite rulers of varying length. I beleive in the infinite number of universes theories, infinite consciousness theory, and even that things exist ouside of psyhical reality but I don't beleive it will ever be within human being's capability to grasp, and measure everything because then the unknown would not exist, and since we can conceive the unknown ot exists. I beleive things we can not comprehend also exist as we can grasp the idea of not being able to comprehend something. What I'm saying is some people beleive in God, and some people the known unviverse, and even multiverse. I beleive in all of the above somehow are all tied together. I know I'm not the only one who thinks this. Say the human brain is only .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent capable of understanding anything at this point in our evolution there would be no way to proove it.
-
Your beliefs are your problem. My observations are mine. Let me know when you have a useful definition of consciousness.
since we can conceive the unknown ot exists.
So there is no such thing as fiction, a lie, or even a joke?
-
No it is for you to go out and investigate.
That's most certainly not true. Where on earth do you get these notions from? Did someone suggest to you that if you have a thought in your mind about the way the world works that you can just state it and we as physicists are obliged to investigate it? I'm sorry to report that this is how physics, or any other science, works. All you did was make a statement. It's not even a scientific hypothesis. Just because you made a statement where nature was the subject it doesn't mean that its a scientific hypothesis. You used the term wrong too. Many nonscientists confuse the terms "theory" with "hypothesis" as you have just done.
To learn what a scientific theory is please read the following. It is for you to understand this by reading it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force
So what you have is not a scientific theory. It's an hypothesis but even then it's not a scientific hypothesis. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.
What you have is something from pseudoscience. Sorry but those are the sad but hard facts. I wish I didn't have to be so blunt but people all too often don't understand science because they never take the time to actually sit down and seriously study science and the philosophy of science.
-
But why should there be a symmetry between stuff and nothing? The theory is unfounded.
And since nothing is unbounded, there should either be an infinity or an infinitesimal amount of something. But there isn't - the universe has a finite density of stuff interspersed with large bits of nothing. Hence the theory is unfounded and invalid.
That's true. He said that "everything exists because it is the opposite of nothing which is nothing". He makes no argument why this should be so. And he doesn't explain the lack of what we observe. We don't have a universe with everything. It we had a universe with everything then there'd be no empty space and no vacuum anywhere and most of the universe is vacuum. That pretty much proves his idea to be wrong.
-
Your beliefs are your problem. My observations are mine. Let me know when you have a useful definition of consciousness.
since we can conceive the unknown ot exists.
So there is no such thing as fiction, a lie, or even a joke?
What's fiction in this reality wouldn't be in another one so fiction always exists. I heard a scientist with a hypothesis that our consciousness creates reality, and if you choose to look at it from this point of view our consciousness creates fact, and fiction. While I understand what he was getting at I like to think of reality
as an infinite multiverse.