Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jdvn1" data-source="post: 2386866" data-attributes="member: 26424">But it does mean we don't fully understand why an how things don't happen perfectly.  If we did, we could calculate it.  Even in what we do know, there's stuff we don't.Interestingly, that's untrue.  In an infinite universe... here, thing about this.  We can see 200 units away.  Is there stuff in the 201st unit?  Maybe, maybe not.  We can apply a percentage possibility, though.  The 201st might not have anything, but what about the 202nd?  Maybe, maybe not.  Eventually, there'll be stuff.  Then, eventually, there'll be more stuff.  And more stuff.  And since we're doing this forever, the stuff will go on forever.Electrons are interchangeable with other electrons.  I don't see the problem here.  Technically, if all stuff is made up of the same smaller stuff (ie, as String Theory might say, or many other "good" theories would say), then that means more stuff is interchangeable.And yet we haven't learned all there is to know about the building blocks and we don't understand how everything behaves, so we can't know this is true.  It's possible there's an infinite amount of things to know about the building blocks.  Who says knowledge is finite?  I think there are too many assumptions here.  And who says we know what all the building blocks are?  And who says we have a finite set of building blocks?  You're limiting yourself to what we've seen.See above.  You donj't know we don't have fundamentally different things in our universe.See above.  Not assumptions.  (I think maybe we can boil down the discussion to that stuff up there, or at least combine related stuff)And who says our perception of reality is consisent throughout the universe?  That'd be an assumption.The theories behind black holes were primarily developed by Hawking.  Black holes are an example of where science is shaky.But how can you assume all things Mankind has ever seen isn't local phenomena?  Is there a chance that it is local phenomena?  If there's a chance it's local phenomena, then in an infinite universe there must be other phenomena we haven't seen.  This argument only works because we're talking about an infinite universe.  The only assumption I'm working with is the one we agreed to start from.Was I attacking you?  If I did, I didn't mean to.  If the original argument is assuming too much, though, then I think we're on very different pages here.</blockquote>

Verification