I kow you must be bugged by my questons...and you can tell me to shut up whenever..but i'll ask you anyway...if there are a 'huge number' of posibilities..is there nothing that is infinite...wat happens when the huge number is exhausted.. it starts over again... everything is like a circle then isnt it...
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 30 June, 19:01, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > So..it happens over and over again?...but if it happens over and over > > again.. the big bang throw out i mean..is it the same pattern always.. or > is > > it different each time.. are there infinite possibilities... > > > > I would think that it's ever-so-slightly different each time. And, I > would think that the difference is at the 'distillation' time (the > 'Inflationary Period') when matter precipitates from the 'cosmic soup' > just after the Big Bang, that way, the entire universe can re-settle > itself and form a completely different universe than the one prior or > the one after. And, yes, the possibilities, while, not necessarily > infinite, are so incredibly huge as to be close enough to > 'countless'. Think on the order of googolplexes of googolplexes of > googolplexes, where a googolplex is a googol (a 1 with a hundred > zeroes after it) to the googolth power. There may truely be a limit > as to what can be done with energy, but there is still a vast and > countless number of possibilities and my estimate above could be off > by a googolplex of googolplexes of googolplexes, and THAT could be off > by just as much. So, like I said, not strictly, NECESSARILY, > infinite, but absolutely, hugely countless. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Pat <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On 29 June, 20:50, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > sorry for my ignorance but could any one tell me wat serial universes > > > > are....... > > > > > As I happened to HAVE to come back in to work in order to try to book > > > a flight, I thought I'd take a peek back here again. What I mean by > > > 'serial universes' is 'one after another', i.e., universes in a > > > series, like episodes of os a soap opera. In this case, the case of > > > universes, each episode starts with a Big Bang and ends with a > > > cataclysmic/apocalyptic 'Last Day' where the matter of this universe > > > expands into the anit-matter wall that forms the outer boundary of the > > > medium through which our space-time expands. Once the huge matter > > > antimatter collision takes place, this leaves nothing but light > > > (photons) and, if the boundary of the medium is shaped like a donut > > > (torus), those photons will wrap around to the centre and re-start the > > > sequence again with a new Big Bang. > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Pat <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 21 June, 20:10, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > So how does the idea of parallel uiverse figure in the already > > > decided > > > > > chain > > > > > > of events? > > > > > > > They're unnecessary, as a 'proper geometry' can account for serial > > > > > universes in which all possibilities can be explored. Basically, > > > > > while parallel universes are 'possible' they aren't as likely as > > > > > 'serial universes', which can be handled by simple geometry of the > > > > > overall system. When you have 'all of time' you gain NOTHING by > > > > > performing events in parallel, so there is no 'gain' in parallel > > > > > universes. In other words, the concept of parallel universes > doesn't > > > > > pass 'Occam's Razor'. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Pat < > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 18 June, 13:09, "[email protected]" < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes RP I agree. > > > > > > > > > > We do it seems have much choice, and we do indeed often have > > > none. > > > > > > > > > > An accident, will change the choices that we have and so the > > > choices > > > > > > > > that we make. The future is not defined, > > > > > > > > > Einstein proved that incorrect 105 years ago. Proved! Since > then, > > > it > > > > > > > has never been disproved, rather, only supported. There is > truth, > > > > > > > though, in your words...the word 'seems'. It seems that we > have > > > > > > > choices. That IS true. But it is an illusion. And I KNOW we > > > don't > > > > > > > want to go 'round and round' this again. Do we? LOL!! ;-) > > > > > > > > > >both human choice and > > > > > > > > circumstances beyond our control for which we have no choices > to > > > > > make, > > > > > > > > go a loong way in deciding what our futures will be. > > > > > > > > > > On 17 June, 21:07, hassan yacoub <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > no we are not bound by the future but the future is bound > by > > > our > > > > > > > present and > > > > > > > > > it is affected by what we do now and whatever we choice and > it > > > is > > > > > too > > > > > > > (the > > > > > > > > > future )a result of the present and this future depends > upon > > > the > > > > > effort > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > do we try and we may succeed or not we try to do our best > and > > > as > > > > > much > > > > > > > as we > > > > > > > > > are strong in mind and in body and educated well by good > > > knowledge > > > > > we > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > succeed and our action be right even right in a place may > be > > > wrong > > > > > some > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:46 AM, RP <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Pat says that we are bound by the future and our choices > are > > > > > > > therefore > > > > > > > > > > those which result in a particular future event. I beg to > > > differ > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > believe that our present actions are the result of our > > > effort > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > endeavour, but our effort is bound by our physical and > > > > > psychological > > > > > > > > > > motives in reaction to the present nature of the > environment. > > > > > That > > > > > > > > > > what we do becomes definite doesn't change the nature of > > > actions. > > > > > We > > > > > > > > > > try to change ourselves and act with a resolve to create > a > > > > > certain > > > > > > > > > > future , and that future is an effect of our actions and > not > > > > > > > > > > viceversa. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > hi to all- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > -- > > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > -- > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - -- \--/ Peace
