The Paradox Thread

[jibber]

Originally Posted by Tuna

^ yeah those two are both mind****s.

Another good one is the Coastline Paradox: it basically shows that a coastline of a landmass is infinite in length, as the lower the measurements you take to measure the coastline, the closer it gets to infinity.

Coastline paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the coastline itself isn't infinite, but the length is undefinable. Although maybe that's what you meant by infinite.

[Freebase Dali]

Originally Posted by jibber

the coastline itself isn't infinite, but the length is undefinable. Although maybe that's what you meant by infinite.

I think I see what you're saying, right? Zoom in to a yard of a particular portion of coastline... then down to an inch... now further to a centimeter... go further down to an atom of one particular grain of sand comprising the coast line. Keep going past the Neutron. Quarks. Further in, theoretical probabilities. Space between space between space. Theoretically, you could go forever into the space between space. It could never be accurately measured.

[midnight rain]

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

I like your brain. Let me play with it for a moment.

If you're to think of the big bang as an explosion, it doesn't make much sense if you think about it. Not so much because of the uniformity of temperature and all that, as that's been sorta explained by inflation theory, but in the actual manner it "banged". The distribution of energy, later to cool and form matter, later to be affected by gravity and form our universe, would have to have banged INTO something. Nothing isn't a viable option (bear with me here). But first think about the universe itself... We already know that empty space is not the absence of everything. It's filled with something. Science calls it dark matter at the moment, but it's just a name for something we can't see but logically know is there. That something NEEDS to be the fabric in which all matter exists... we can really just chalk existence up to "taking advantage of having something to float in" if you really think about it.
Something can't exist in nothing. Not if we're using science and logic. The fabric of nothing (or probably better termed, the fabric of what we can't see or measure at this time) had to come from somewhere. But where?
Was it always here? If so, what created it?

What if, during the singularity and resultant big bang, nothing was created. And by nothing, I mean the undefinable shit we're floating around in. But not created out of a necessity of being there, but pouring in through a leak from somewhere else? Another universe perhaps?
What if the singularity was actually a hole being opened from the layer between a universe and absolute nothingness and existence itself poured into and created a pocket universe that we now live in, like water being injected into a bowl of jello through a syringe...

I know this all sounds crazy, and people are probably wondering if I'm on acid or not, but I just wanted to throw some creative ideas out there to you, as they're all in realms of paradox-land, and see what you might toss back. I love that shit.

Yeah I'm thinking I'm in over my head on this one, but lemme try and wrap my head around it.

From how I always saw it, all the matter and everything that exists (dark matter included) was once packed tightly into a marble with a very high density, so I don't THINK that anything was created from the big bang, so much as spread out.

As for what dimension the actual big bang existed in, you got me on that one. Consult the link I posted above, because it's beyond my knowledge.

The whole pouring in from the universe is some crazy **** that's making my head spin. In other words, I love it! You talk about a layer of nothingness that the singularity had to go through. My question is, what's nothingness composed of? As far as the other Universes, where did they originate from? Where's the original Universe and how did it get it's start? Just some questions to throw back at ya and your theory.

Which brings up the idea of black holes and their theorized portals to other parts of the Universe (or maybe other Universe's)?

[jibber]

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

I think I see what you're saying, right? Zoom in to a yard of a particular portion of coastline... then down to an inch... now further to a centimeter... go further down to an atom of one particular grain of sand comprising the coast line. Keep going past the Neutron. Quarks. Further in, theoretical probabilities. Space between space between space. Theoretically, you could go forever into the space between space. It could never be accurately measured.

Yeah that's what I'm saying. I agree that it could never be measured but I disagree with the term infinite because the coastline does end, but the EXACT measurement just isn't discernible by any means we have. But, if you use that logic for a coastline then really isn't the measurement of everything on the planet "infinite?" Replace 'every strand of hair and skin cell' with 'grain of sand' in that paragraph and you have an argument for why a person's height is "infinite".

[midnight rain]

Originally Posted by jibber

the coastline itself isn't infinite, but the length is undefinable. Although maybe that's what you meant by infinite.

In a way, though, it is infinite in length. I mean you can just keep getting more accurate and accurate with more precise measurements and that just expands the length of the coastline. This makes me question any distance ever measured and the concept of 'distance' as a whole.

[jibber]

Originally Posted by Tuna

In a way, though, it is infinite in length. I mean you can just keep getting more accurate and accurate with more precise measurements and that just expands the length of the coastline. This makes me question any distance ever measured and the concept of 'distance' as a whole.

Yeah well that's kind of what I said in my post above. The coastline is just an arbitrary example of an argument that says nothing can really be accurately measured. I just take issue with the word "infinite" to define it rather than unmeasurable. The actual measure of an object/thing/whatever may be infinite, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the thing itself is. It just means that we don't have the means to define that end.

[boo boo]

Eventually they're gonna have to cancel Lets Make a Deal because too many clever assh*les are gonna end up winning the big prizes now that they figured this sh*t out.

[midnight rain]

Originally Posted by jibber

Yeah well that's kind of what I said in my post above. The coastline is just an arbitrary example of an argument that says nothing can really be accurately measured. I just take issue with the word "infinite" to define it rather than unmeasurable. The actual measure of an object/thing/whatever may be infinite, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the thing itself is. It just means that we don't have the means to define that end.

I guess saying it "approaches infinity" may be a more appropriate term for it.

It's not even the defining the length of it matter. It's getting the precise measurements of it.

For example, a straight line's length CAN be defined.

A real jagged coastline, as is used in the coastline paradox, can't be because it's impossible to take in every little degree (and 1/8 of a degree, 1/16, etc.).

See where I'm going? Or do I just sound like an idiot?

[Freebase Dali]

Originally Posted by Tuna

Yeah I'm thinking I'm in over my head on this one, but lemme try and wrap my head around it.

From how I always saw it, all the matter and everything that exists (dark matter included) was once packed tightly into a marble with a very high density, so I don't THINK that anything was created from the big bang, so much as spread out.

I agree, but where did the matter come from? It had to come from somewhere.

As for what dimension the actual big bang existed in, you got me on that one. Consult the link I posted above, because it's beyond my knowledge.

The whole pouring in from the universe is some crazy **** that's making my head spin. In other words, I love it! You talk about a layer of nothingness that the singularity had to go through. My question is, what's nothingness composed of? As far as the other Universes, where did they originate from? Where's the original Universe and how did it get it's start? Just some questions to throw back at ya and your theory.

Which brings up the idea of black holes and their theorized portals to other parts of the Universe (or maybe other Universe's)?

Think of nothingness as an infinitely large bowl of water, provided we're assuming the water isn't actually anything, for this mind experiment. We'll use the water as our version of absolute nothingness. Now, drop in some oil. This will be our space fabric, which contains whatever matter we put inside it, following the same rules as the fabric in which it exists. Since oil is not soluble in water, the oil exists as its own little drops in a medium of which it is both unaware, and unconcerned with, but that medium facilitates its existence during this given instance. All matter and items within these droplets of oil are strictly adhered to the properties and laws of the oil, and not the water facilitating it.

Now think of our universe. It is comprised of uncountable numbers of various formations comprised of matter, which we know as galaxies, stars, suns, planets, dust, energy, etc., and it's all existing in SOMETHING. A common medium. Something that can facilitate the validity of actually being there. "something to float in". But what's outside of it? Well, we call this water, nothing. Only, unlike the scenario I've used, actual nothing has no physical properties to restrain what's being put in it. There are no dimensional restraints, no viscosity levels... all that exists in it is the propensity for something to fill it.

Now where it really becomes mind-bending directly addresses your question, "what is nothing comprised of". Well, in short, it has to be... nothing. Nothing isn't comprised of anything. It's not a barrier. It absolutely can't be, because it would then be considered "something", and would have to be comprised of some type of matter. So if we assume that nothing is actually not comprised of anything, you come to the conclusion that there is nothing stopping our universe from expanding. What would be stopping it? If you put a large amount of "something" into "nothing", why would it NOT expand given the vast amounts of compressed "stuff"? Nothing is stopping it.

The critical part is that there can only be so much "stuff" in the first place, unless there's a steady leak... which we (assumingly) know there isn't. So you can conclude that there is a limited universe in which we live in. It "leaked in" or "exploded in" our canvas of nothingness, and expanded into the infinite void of propensity to be filled. Or you can just call it "space" in a non-traditional sense of the word... like pouring a gallon of paint onto a canvas the size of New York... At some point, the paint is going to stop spreading, because there isn't enough paint pressure left in the center of it to drive the outward force.

That makes logical sense to me, but the conflicting news is that science is actually witnessing the expansion accelerating. To me, that means one of two things... Either everything we assume about the creation of the universe is fundamentally wrong, or whatever leaked into our existence is still leaking. We can't create more energy than we already have. It's coming from somewhere other than what already exists for us.

[midnight rain]

Oh, and back to the topic of space and the Universe for a second. One theory that is recognized as a possible ending to the Universe is the "Big Crunch", which is basically the reverse of the big bang. Using this theory, one can postulate that the Universe has been on a never ending cycle of Big Bang/Crunches.

The Big Crunch theory is a symmetric view of the ultimate fate of the Universe . Just as the Big Bang started a cosmological expansion, this theory postulates that the average density of the universe is enough to stop its expansion and begin contracting. The end result is unknown; a simple extrapolation would have all the matter and space-time in the universe collapse into a dimensionless singularity, but at these scales unknown quantum effects need to be considered (See Quantum gravity).
This scenario allows the Big Bang to have been immediately preceded by the Big Crunch of a preceding universe. If this occurs repeatedly, we have an oscillatory universe. The universe could then consist of an infinite sequence of finite universes, each finite universe ending with a Big Crunch that is also the Big Bang of the next universe. Theoretically, the oscillating universe could not be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics: entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation and cause heat death. Other measurements suggested the universe is not closed. These arguments caused cosmologists to abandon the oscillating universe model. A somewhat similar idea is embraced by the cyclic model, but this idea evades heat death, because of an expansion of the branes that dilutes entropy accumulated in the previous cycle.

Also, random fun fact: some of what you hear in static is actually the echo of the big bang.