and i know you guys will probably resent watching this whole video, but what do u have to say about it:

Added (29/Dec/09, 2:38 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
alright u little rugrats, thats fine dont watch it

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

First of all we can use the old argument: Why not just say that the univers ALWAYS existed and save a step by eliminating a god factor.

Or we can use the new argument: All of this talk of beginning, origin, causes, is simply nonsense. It may be the case that the real explanation as to the universe are beyond our capacity to comprehend and beyond our ability to rationalize. Our brains simply don't have the cognition power to generate an understanding of the universe, or existence for that matter. Quantum physics is making the issue even worse, they are adding dimensions to the universe, but that still doesn't explain its origin. And for this reason, I am weary of quantum physics and all sciences that try to explain origins. Deconstructionism and critical theory has got to me.

When we say the universe began, or that it has always existed, BOTH ARE WRONG. There is likely a different explanation containing information that our brains simply cannot process by our method of logic or reasoning. It may be as simple as that. We have to realize our mental barriers.

Though we have made strides. Early people comprehended finity. We can now comprehend infinity. There is likely something beyond that of another kind that we cannot comprehend.

But regarding the video, that idiot is dropping fallacy after fallacy. It's far too exhausting and petty to go into. *sigh*

by VFX's explanation, he would have to rationalize God as all of the energy in the universe, including the energy that decomposed to become matter, which is a view that i am ok with. it is the view that Einstein and Spinoza held and, while i disagree with their need to place the label "God" on the universe as they have done, it doesn't make their view any less likely to be factual. going from there, however, to saying that this God is necessarily the God of the bible is not only illogical (in the sense that it is scientifically impossible), it is also a slippery slope fallacy.

...as of yet.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

we're just asking about the timeline of the universe, its not rocket science.... its like an "existence of the universe vs. time" graph...a) it started at some point, b) its a continuous line c) it goes on and off? do you kids see any other way to draw this line? perhaps its a 3 dimensional graph

i think it would be better if you said "both may be wrong"

i don't think either of us is condoning deconstructionism and critical theory as anything more than something to open your horizons. personally, my understanding of deconstructionism and critical theory in terms of anything outside of the literary world leads me to believe that they are completely irrelevant and bullshit as basically each are the practice of deconstructing an argument based on semantics which is a completely irrelevant criteria for most arguments unless they are specifically dealing with language. as it stands, both are most often only used in literary teachings. that is their purpose and they should both be left there.

"In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. This statement has been interpreted in two different ways. According to Heisenberg its meaning is that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and velocity of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. According to others (for instance Ballentine)[1] this is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics."

what about it? you are obviously misinterpreting this. it is specifically speaking about quantum mechanics, not anything else, and think about it like this: you can, for example, know an objects momentum or it's position, but you cannot know both at once, because if you speak of it's position, it would require it to be stationary, but if you speak of it's momentum, it would have to be moving.

it's cosmology, a subdivision of astronomy, which needs to be taken into account heavily and may even be one of the main factors in rocket science. anyways, think about this: up until Copernicus the world was thought to have been flat. we really were unable to envision any other possibility for many reasons. when Copernicus came along, because of new technology, previous experiments and observations, etc., we were finally able to think differently and we realized the world was round.

i agree

highly improbable to the point of virtual impossibility.

highly improbable to the point of virtual impossibility.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Derrida never gave a clear definition, because due to its tenets, that would be impossible by language. But it doesn't only focus on text. It is often attributed to text because text will sit still and allow deconstruction. But deconstruction also follows through into anything involving language and thinking (beings thinking uses language), therefore philosophy, science, and everything else is effected. It is concerned with more than semantics. It is moreso concerned with how our minds are conditioned to think (make assumptions, conclusions, rationalize, etc.). It is a difficult thing to explain (and I see why Derrida never tried to). But at the root of deconstruction is the consideration of upon what all things are founded. Deconstruction has been around for centuries in a very crude primitive oblivious form. For example, Descartes "Meditations on First Philosophy" is a fine example of deconstructing understandings of epistemology. Although I would say he failed at his goal, it was an essential attempt. Deconstruction seems to often lead to revisionism (which is found all throughout philosophy and many other fields). But the problem is that the revision would require further deconstruction of its own.

And as far as critical theory, there is the literary kind, and then critical social theory. In a nutshell, Wikipedia greatly defines critical social theory, "Critical social theory is, in contrast, a form of self-reflective knowledge involving both understanding and theoretical explanation to reduce entrapment in systems of domination or dependence, obeying the emancipatory interest in expanding the scope of autonomy and reducing the scope of domination."

It couldn't be said any better. Human thought tends to end up on a certain path without realizing what caused them to take that very first step onto that path long ago. The result is intellectual derailment that often requires revision when we discover new insight, and as an effect, we experience a sense of disillusionment. But the worry is that perhaps we may drift too far down certain paths (that are ill founded long ago by either culture & tradition, biology, psychology) and be incapable of bridging onto new paths through revision. The result of this is permanent illusion that we can never seem to figure out (which we seem to often experience). Philosophy engages in deconstruction and critical social theory all the time, but we simply don't really realize it, but philosophy itself may need its own critical deconstruction. And that deconstruction may need its own deconstruction, and so on. (Derrida simply vaguely conceptualized it, and then made everyone confused.)

This is how frontier sciences are effected. Because in history, we have to try to consider what led us to think our logic and rationalism is somehow intrinsic. It actually seems to be controlled by biology. So when facing the enormous complexities of cosmic origin, the logical conclusions that are made about the origin may be derailed and out of range of actuality.

Basically our biology, or psychology may have evolved through time (due to millions of factors) to confront the cosmos without effective or accurate abilities. The more complex something is the more likely we are to get it completely wrong. Once again, it all boils down to upon what foundation all of our methods of thinking began. If it began mistaken, it is likely to be ingrained in us still mistaken.

I'm not suggesting any alternative though. The problem may be irreparable. Science might as well keep trying as long as it makes our lives better.

Sorry to get off topic.

idk man. i was wondering the same thing

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

For a neuro biological construct confined within and knowing only, though not entirely, the frame work of matter,space and time as its sole measurable reference to existence... however for a "God" why not?

Surely it would not be confined within or measured by the laws of that which it may have created.....wouldn't that lessen it's "Godness"?

Why would we think that this "God" would be anything like us or anything we know?.....unless Religious texts and mythology are the sole basis of describing that which would essencially be indescribable by its nature or non nature.