We could write a book with this....
When I say "the universe," I mean "the visible universe," yes, but I also assume that, since I've assumed the universe as a whole will one day stop expanding, it will one day ALL be visible (nevermind that there'd be nothing to see).
Nonexistence, if present, exists. It's mind-boggling. It's confusing. How can something that doesn't exist exist? Our minds cannot concieve of an utter lack of absolutely everything. Using words to accurately describe it is pointless -- I just said that nonexistance WAS something, a "lack," which it couldn't be if it didn't exist. It involves a bit of the "doublethink" principle from Orwell's 1984 to accept that nonexistence exists. It doesn't make sense, yet it has to be so.
"Edge of the Universe," Edge of the entire universe. Which, will one day be the edge of the visible, since the universe as a whole will stop expanding and the visible will catch up.
The fact that there may be utter nonexistance "outside," because of the way our minds work, still means that something's outside -- nonexistance. Even if it doesn't exist, and that's the problem. If the universe is NOT infinite in volume, which it wouldn't be if it stopped expanding, then when you reached the "edge" of it, what would you find if you went beyond? SOMETHING has to be there because our ways of thinking are not equipped to deal with something not being.
All of which is dependent upon the universe as a whole being FINITE in volume, which, given entropy and that it's a closed system, it should. But for the dark matter/energy.
This is where we have to say we don't even have as much to go on for dark matter/energy as the rest of what we've been discussing (which is already VERY little).
However, dark matter/energy being in our "universe," it will obey our universe's laws. Entropy should apply to it, too. One day, it, too will run out. Yet it somehow remains constant mass.
We could theorize that dark matter is dark because it's a whole new class of antimater, that expended energy, when it drops low enough, becomes high-energy dark energy, and small masses of matter, when reduced to incredibly small scales, become supermassive dark matter masses, thus our "entropy" is really the draining of what we call "matter" and "energy" from the top of the "hourglass" (top being "normal" matter/energy, bottom being dark energy/matter) that will one day be "turned over" to keep the universe going, and our universe could then be both a closed system and infinite in volume, thus refuting my arguments. Or, if the universe isn't a closed system and the dark matter's coming from somewhere else, EVENTUALLY it will have to run out unless it's self-replenishing.
So either we've got matter/energy becoming inversely massive/energetic dark matter/energy when the normal matter/energy drops to INCREDIBLY small levles,
Or the universe is not a closed system,
Or any of an infinite amount of other possibilities.
We can't aruge every one of them. I picked one, and went with it. Here we've found the flaw. This new avenue bears discussion.
But anyway, back to the hypothesis I'm currently defending:
rkolter wrote:
you cannot scientifically state that whatever lies BEYOND THE UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE must obey the same laws as the visible universe.
Scientifically? No. Definitely not. I'm not a practicing physicist nor astronomer, I don't have the tools in my species to observe these things. I am approaching it with logic, which goes hand in hand with science. Scientific approaches on such a grand scale are out of humanity's reach for now.
YarpsDat wrote:
Czar said "An infinite expansion practically means a finite existence"
That's logical one way implication "infinite expansion=> finite existence", not two way implication. But you're treating it like it was a two way implication. (and then you somewhat prove that it's not... well, let's just say your approach to logic is mind boggling )
You're right. I don't know why I made them two way. I didn't want to use "=", since that implied equality rather than "implies," and I guess I just opted for -> but made it <->. It must've sounded like a good idea at the time.
I believe I only attempted to apply them going the correct way, though. But if I didn't, I provided a a logical reason for why and steps in logic leading to that conclusion.
Or, to use "your" definition of dark energy:
YarpsDat wrote:
"dark energy -- the energy density (energy per unit volume) remains approximately constant, while the volume increases as the universe expands, so the total energy increases.",
Our universe is not a closed system, then. If it
IS a closed system, then something like the "hourglass" must be going on to resupply the dark energy.
Also, I find that my arguments about the edge of the universe as a whole and the "outside" interacting,
and the argument that says because they touch they'll both end up under the same set of laws, oil/water, super/subclass, blah blah being refuted by the VERY STATEMENTS I DESIGNED THEM TO ARGUE AGAINST. And I have no better reply than to assume you missed the point and reiterate my arguments in those cases, making YOU think I'm just restating the original premise.
You guys are saying that there is not necessarily any reason to believe the outside/inside interact, and if they do there's no reason to belive they obey the same set of physical laws. I am trying to PROVIDE a reason, arrived at logically based on my knowledge of science and the assumptions we've arrived at in this thread. It does not make sense to refute a reason for an unexplainable phenomena with the fact that the phenomena is unexplainable.
So, were you missing the point, and do you get it now, or am I missing some point that you need to point out to me?
YarpsDat wrote:
Okay, I'm a bit rusty, but let's roll.
Let's say the laws of physics ar the class' methods.
And let's say the existence superclass' methods are all virtual or purely virtual.
The inside and the outside override the methods in their own ways.
Now, through many experiments we've managed to reverse-engineer the methods of the "inside" subclass. What does that tell us about the "outside" class methods?
Very little, if anything at all.
For that to be the case, the "existence" superclass would have to be abstract/vitrtual (no bodies, right? just headings? java uses the term abstract or calls the classes interfaces, at least what I've learned of it).
That being the case, we've got two sets of existence with the SAME conditions (methods) filled in utterly different ways (the method bodies).
And we end up back at square one -- we don't know anything and can't prove anytying. Which is what you're saying.
I'm saying "what if," and hypothesizing a way that the inside and outside could interact that's no more or less valid than yours.
I'm suggesting existence is not entirely abstract. It has some methods of its own, WTIH BODIES, that aren't overriden. Inside/Outside subclasses expand upon these, but, since the inside/outside are NOT the same as each other, know nothing of each other, anything dealing with interactions between them will be handled by the SUPERCLASS.
As I mentioned before, I base this, (as yours is based, and all things must be when we run out of actual data) on a measure of faith. I've decided that to me, it's logical for the inside and outside to exist on the same level, both part of the larger existence as a whole.
Your example, with existence purely abstract, allows us to extrapolate in ALMOST the same way as if we were dealing with not two parts of existence, but two SEPERATE existences.
So we reach a great, completely abstract, philosophical question: Are our universe and whatever's "outside," totally seperate entities, or part of some larger entity?
To peas in a can of peas, or two cans?
I've stated my logic for part of some larger; what's yours for totally seperate?
On a nigh-unrelated note: Schroedinger's (or whoever's) cat, or a 2 ft by 2ft by 2ft cube (or any size; picked that for manageability) with sides 1inch (again, could be any thickness) thick filled with nonexistance.)
sorry about that. I thought I was being funny. ^^;
)
You're sounding a lot like Van Douchebag, minus the swearing.
You have made a DECISION to SELECTIVELY deny the possibility of LOGICAL solutions to the situation at hand, because you HAVE DIFFICULTY ACCEPTING the concept. You aren't being logical. You aren't being scientific. You're being religious.
