Random Thought #1

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:04 pm

You hear of people having out of body experiences all the time with little to no explanation other than the person was probably hallucinating.

Well, if the fabric of the universe is throughout the whole universe then it should make sense that your own concsiouness is a part of this fabric and since the fabric of the universe constitutes the whole universe why is it you're consiousness couldn't possibly expand into it? Perhaps this is the reason we have out of body experiences and perhaps it may be possible to even do it voluntarily.

Also if you die perhaps your consiousness doesn't die since it's part of this fabric...

I'm stoned as usual.

Post by **andyman** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:08 pm

That would make our poop part of this fabric

Post by **Pext** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:08 pm

undecidable

anyways: why did you start counting anew? you've allready been at #21

Post by **4days** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:10 pm

clearly not stoned enough, that was bordering on coherent

Post by **inphlict** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:12 pm

Because we are not acctually connected to the fabric of the universe (whatever that is), we are simply something that can create their own ideas, dreams, hulicinations, etc. Once the living body dies there is probally no more life after.

However I think that we might again regain consensus in a trillion^999 years, if matter cannot be created or destroyed and if the universe has no timelimit.

Post by **bork[e]** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:13 pm

:icon26: *waits for tnf and the rest to come in and explain otherwise* Neat0 thought Kracus. Explain this though...say space does have a "stopping point", now this point can not be passed and there is no "other side" to this point. What would you think this boundary is composed of?

Post by **rep** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:31 pm

Comparing the ethereal to the real is a daunting task, and a failure of an exercise. No science can possibly explain the world in which science is based on, so how could it suggest anything corporeal? Science is a flawed practice because it's purpose is to determine the why, yet there will always be yet another why as the remainder thereof.

"The universe was created by the big bang." vis-à-vis, "Why?" It's one of the basic principles that children understand completely; The quest for knowledge cannot be completed, and therefor is a futile endeavour - but children understand this not. Thus, they never stop asking, "Why?" Once they reach a certain age, even when given an answer. Science is an interpretation of reality... Reality is something we can never truly understand.

Post by **Pext** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:32 pm

bork[e]:

border of the universe - the problem you face, thinking of a border, is that your conception of the vacuum, 'containing' all material, includes a dimensioning or volume.

but actually the universe could be described as a list of all existing objects.
in a very simplified version this would be a list of 6-tuples (3 coordinates for space, 3 for velocity; relative to some arbitrary origin of course), containting one entry for every atom.
using this model there would be no actual border...

Post by **Pext** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:34 pm

i agree with rep btw.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:35 pm

It's only futile if it never gets anywhere. As long as some kind of progress is made then it's worthwhile. When we truly fail is when we stop trying to figure the univers out.

Post by **dmmh** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:36 pm

*looks for ignore button*

daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamit

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:45 pm

dmmh wrote:*looks for ignore button*

daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamit

You'll have to go manual I'm afraid.

Post by **Pauly** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:59 pm

I thought I would bring an icon to this thread

Post by **dzjepp** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:03 pm

rep wrote:There is no spoon.

Hey thanx Morpheus.

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:07 pm

Kracus wrote:You hear of people having out of body experiences all the time with little to no explanation other than the person was probably hallucinating.

Well, if the fabric of the universe is throughout the whole universe then it should make sense that your own concsiouness is a part of this fabric and since the fabric of the universe constitutes the whole universe why is it you're consiousness couldn't possibly expand into it? Perhaps this is the reason we have out of body experiences and perhaps it may be possible to even do it voluntarily.

Also if you die perhaps your consiousness doesn't die since it's part of this fabric...

I'm stoned as usual.

Or maybe you're just some tosser working the phone and posting on the internet?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:24 pm

Pext wrote:bork[e]:

border of the universe - the problem you face, thinking of a border, is that your conception of the vacuum, 'containing' all material, includes a dimensioning or volume.

but actually the universe could be described as a list of all existing objects.
in a very simplified version this would be a list of 6-tuples (3 coordinates for space, 3 for velocity; relative to some arbitrary origin of course), containting one entry for every atom.
using this model there would be no actual border...

Actualy I touched on the fact that the universe has a border before and tnf dismissed that without really looking at it that much but, if you think about it it's not that bad an idea as far as ideas go anyway.

Say you have a small baloon that can baloon to a total size of earth when you fill it with air. Now take that baloon and make it so the exterior of the baloon only stretches out to the size of a baseball. There's still the same ammount of air in the baloon whether it's the size of a baseball or the size of the earth it's just more compressed in it's small size.

Now you have a balloon the size of a baseball in your hand with enough air to fill a baloon the size of earth. (whether it is possible to compress air this much is irrelevant it's just an analogy you'll understand later) Anyway, if the material the balloon is made suddenly changes so that it starts to expand to the size of the earth (cause that's how much air is in there) then you have how I muse that the universe has borders. The border of the universe is like the baloon and the pressure inside the universe is caused much the same way (but not quite) as the compressed air in the balloon.

However in our universe, instead of pressure you have gravity. And this gravity is caused because the fabric of the universe and gravity are related. And the only thing that I can tie together to be the relation between the two is nothing. IE: Where there is not something.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:27 pm

Kracus,

When you say 'universe', how many dimensions are you speaking of?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:30 pm

What are you talking about? I'm talking about this universe, with three dimensions.

Post by **Pext** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:30 pm

sry, but this is utter crap -

the pressure inside the universe

what pressure

And this gravity is caused because the fabric of the universe and gravity are related

what's the fabric of the universe

And the only thing that I can tie together to be the relation between the two is nothing. IE: Where there is not something.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:32 pm

Kracus wrote:What are you talking about? I'm talking about this universe, with three dimensions.

See this is where you start to go wrong.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:33 pm

Kracus wrote:
Pext wrote:bork[e]:

However in our universe, instead of pressure you have gravity. And this gravity is caused because the fabric of the universe and gravity are related. And the only thing that I can tie together to be the relation between the two is nothing. IE: Where there is not something.

What about mass?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:38 pm

Ok pext those are good questions and here's my explanation.

I'm using the term pressure but it's not the correct term. See what I'm saying is that inside the universe is a fabric that contains the key to everything. It exists everywhere, even in nothing. However as nothing it has a property, just like it has different property in every OTHER type of matter. However in nothing it's property is to keep everything else together which is why nothing is EVERYWHERE something isn't. The reason it's everywhere is because there's pressure exerted on the boundaries of the universe on it's inside wall.

This pressure is much like that baloon I was talking about and caused for the same reasons which is why the universe is expanding, just like the baloon would if it could.

Another property of nothing is gravity. That's a lot more explaining though I'll let you see if you got what I mean first.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:39 pm

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
Kracus wrote:
Pext wrote:bork[e]:

However in our universe, instead of pressure you have gravity. And this gravity is caused because the fabric of the universe and gravity are related. And the only thing that I can tie together to be the relation between the two is nothing. IE: Where there is not something.
What about mass?

What do you mean?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:40 pm

Oh wait I know what you mean, actualy mass does play a part in the ammount of gravity that's exerted on that mass depending on it's size AND I even have a reason.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:42 pm

Kracus wrote:
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
Kracus wrote: What about mass?
What do you mean?

The fabric of the universe (matter) is related to gravity by mass not nothingness.

Random Thought #1

Random Thought #1

Re: Random Thought #1