I agree, the idea that the universe was created by a couple of guys
riding a turtle is absurd. In fact most religious theories are laughable.

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...

Total knowledge in the universe must ne less than the energy content of
the universe which is finite. You say that your ignorance is infinite so
are you saying there's no point to knowledge since we have less than none?



Actually, you are much closer than you think.

Any knowledge that we possess, must be greater than none, ... however we
are infinitely ignorant. We have theories about the origin of the Universe
that are incredibly stupid.


Einstein wasn't a genius, he was a brilliant deceiver. Hawkins is equally
gifted!




Regards


Donal
--

But, if all the information contained in the universe is finite, your
premise is incorrect -i.e. we cannot be infinitely ignorant.

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:
"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...

Total knowledge in the universe must ne less than the energy content of
the universe which is finite. You say that your ignorance is infinite so
are you saying there's no point to knowledge since we have less than none?



Actually, you are much closer than you think.

Any knowledge that we possess, must be greater than none, ... however we
are infinitely ignorant. We have theories about the origin of the Universe
that are incredibly stupid.


Einstein wasn't a genius, he was a brilliant deceiver. Hawkins is equally
gifted!




Regards


Donal
--

If the universe is infinite how can you say total energy content is finite,
for that matter can you list all the forms of energy? Certain currently
existing types may be finite in specific locations but even those, once
used, only change into another form. If the universe is not infinite then
a) define the limits and b) describe what lies beyond those parameters.

This is not a test question. You don't get a gold star nor an ink blot in
your copy book.

Personally, to stay on topic, I don't find Australian behaviour disgusting
at all. That's a myth, mere propaganda like the rain of Seattle. They are
really quite. . . how should I say . . . .affable!

LOL
MST

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
But, if all the information contained in the universe is finite, your
premise is incorrect -i.e. we cannot be infinitely ignorant.


Who said that all the information in the universe was finite?


Let us consider, for a moment, the properties of a sub-atomic particle ...
an electron.

For our example, I would invite you to take only *one* of the atoms of
oxygen that exist in the room that you are currently sitting in. .. (I
assume that you are seated).


Now, I invite you to consider the information that might pertain to that
single electron. We might consider it's mass! We might consider it's
position in space! Perhaps we might also consider it's position in space at
a specific point in the past. We might even try to forecst where it will be
at a specific point in the future.


As there are an infinite number of points of time in the future - there are
an infinite number of bits of information about this single electron. In
fact, there are an infinite number of points in time in the next second. As
you can see, there is an infinite amount of knowledge about the existence of
a single electron over the next second of its' existence.


To disprove your theory even further, we can either take our electron and go
down to smaller particles, or we can go up to bigger entities.


Either way, you are wrong. It is amazing, but with my knowledge of man's
ignorance, I can prove that you know nothing about the nature of knowledge!



Regards


Donal
--

"Schoonertrash" wrote in message
...

Personally, to stay on topic, I don't find Australian behaviour disgusting
at all. That's a myth, mere propaganda like the rain of Seattle. They
are
really quite. . . how should I say . . . .affable!

LOL

"affable". Do you mean that they aren't real men?



Regards


Donal
--

Easy going, mellow, laid back, polite in an understated way. . . .nice .
...affable. Course that's from my view point. Others think they are rude,
crude and tatooed . .Blue! . .. .. fair disgusting. That's from
their viewpoint. Ah well . .. .

Who said it was infinite?

Cheers MC

Schoonertrash wrote:

If the universe is infinite how can you say total energy content is finite,
for that matter can you list all the forms of energy? Certain currently
existing types may be finite in specific locations but even those, once
used, only change into another form. If the universe is not infinite then
a) define the limits and b) describe what lies beyond those parameters.

This is not a test question. You don't get a gold star nor an ink blot in
your copy book.

Personally, to stay on topic, I don't find Australian behaviour disgusting
at all. That's a myth, mere propaganda like the rain of Seattle. They are
really quite. . . how should I say . . . .affable!

LOL
MST

And that is where you are so wrong. The fact is that we can predict
exactly where the atom will be for a short period with perfect accurace
-that's thanks to QED. The problem is that the solution to greater times
becomes too complex. This does not mean that information content right
now is infinite. You are mixing the plurarity of the future with
existance. The fact is that the energy content right _now_ is finite. It
cannot be otherwise! The refute this implies that our existance (wave
state) right is not a certainty (deterministic). Now you are not going
to say you don't exist are you?

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...

But, if all the information contained in the universe is finite, your
premise is incorrect -i.e. we cannot be infinitely ignorant.



Who said that all the information in the universe was finite?


Let us consider, for a moment, the properties of a sub-atomic particle ...
an electron.

For our example, I would invite you to take only *one* of the atoms of
oxygen that exist in the room that you are currently sitting in. .. (I
assume that you are seated).


Now, I invite you to consider the information that might pertain to that
single electron. We might consider it's mass! We might consider it's
position in space! Perhaps we might also consider it's position in space at
a specific point in the past. We might even try to forecst where it will be
at a specific point in the future.


As there are an infinite number of points of time in the future - there are
an infinite number of bits of information about this single electron. In
fact, there are an infinite number of points in time in the next second. As
you can see, there is an infinite amount of knowledge about the existence of
a single electron over the next second of its' existence.


To disprove your theory even further, we can either take our electron and go
down to smaller particles, or we can go up to bigger entities.


Either way, you are wrong. It is amazing, but with my knowledge of man's
ignorance, I can prove that you know nothing about the nature of knowledge!



Regards


Donal
--

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
And that is where you are so wrong. The fact is that we can predict
exactly where the atom will be for a short period with perfect accurace
-that's thanks to QED. The problem is that the solution to greater times
becomes too complex. This does not mean that information content right
now is infinite.

Of course it does!

Can you not break the next second into an infinite number of smaller time
frames?

Therefore, there are an infinite number of possibilities for the information
pertaining to the position of any single electron



You are mixing the plurarity of the future with
existance.

Well, if the next second is too difficult, how about the application of my
ideas to the last second?



The fact is that the energy content right _now_ is finite.

Only if you subscribe to the "Big Bang" Theory.

I don't.


It has several problems. The first is that the Universe was created out of
nothing at all - and that equal quantities of matter and anti-matter were
created.

Tell me, were equal quantities of Energy and anti-Energy created?

Is there really no empty space beyond the bounds of our little Universe?


It
cannot be otherwise! The refute this implies that our existance (wave
state) right is not a certainty (deterministic). Now you are not going
to say you don't exist are you?

I only exist in my own mind..... as do you.

Of course, *I* might only exist in your mind.




Regards



Donal
--

Donal wrote:
"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...

And that is where you are so wrong. The fact is that we can predict
exactly where the atom will be for a short period with perfect accurace
-that's thanks to QED. The problem is that the solution to greater times
becomes too complex. This does not mean that information content right
now is infinite.


Of course it does!

Can you not break the next second into an infinite number of smaller time
frames?

That has nothing to do with the energy content of the system.

Therefore, there are an infinite number of possibilities for the information
pertaining to the position of any single electron

Yes but only one comes into exixtance with observation. At that point
the wave function is determined and there your are!


You are mixing the plurarity of the future with
existance.


Well, if the next second is too difficult, how about the application of my
ideas to the last second?

Seconds are a long time on the atomis scale.



The fact is that the energy content right _now_ is finite.


Only if you subscribe to the "Big Bang" Theory.

I don't.


That is not a requirement of BB theories.

It has several problems. The first is that the Universe was created out of
nothing at all - and that equal quantities of matter and anti-matter were
created.

Tell me, were equal quantities of Energy and anti-Energy created?

Is there really no empty space beyond the bounds of our little Universe?


Yes nothing. nada. Zip.

Cheers MC


It
cannot be otherwise! The refute this implies that our existance (wave
state) right is not a certainty (deterministic). Now you are not going
to say you don't exist are you?


I only exist in my own mind..... as do you.

Of course, *I* might only exist in your mind.




Regards



Donal
--