You make a 'valid' statement. You admit the inability to PROVE there IS a God. Yet, you make a statement of equal proportions. You admit yourself that there is NO 'small' positive numbers. Where is the beginning? Can you actually find the starting point of everything? If you cannot, then, you are not justified for NOT believing in God under the same premise YOU made. I feel this is a personal issue with you. If so, perhaps, sentiment should be taken out of logical pursuit..
There is no smallest positive number and yet the plane STILL crossed over from negative to positive. Just because you can divide something in half till you get down to like quarks and stuff, doesn't mean that it never passes because it can't. Go halfway to the wall then halfway again and repeat. will you get there ever? Or does that really only work in math? I don't know. Where does my arm stop and the air begin? Which came first? Me or the egg? oh wait, chicken or the egg?
Exactly. "Go halfway to the wall and halfway again and repeat". The point is, you DO get to the wall. The fact that you pass an infinite number of "half way points" on the way there doesn't change that. Zeno never copped on to that. :P
Btw this video reminds me of your "bouncing-ball" analogy which you also used to illustrate that there is no need for a "First Event" (or first bounce) to exist.
Yes, it's the result of a wee discussion I had with someone in my infinite regression video which was a direct follow on from the Bouncing Ball one. Well spotted.
Right on. Asking what happened before the universe existed is futile because there was no "before". Time itself is part of the universe and cannot exist without it.
I think the misconception about the big bang theory was that there was nothing at all then a singularity appeared and started expanding.
When I try to think of infinite's my brain hurts so I won't dwell on it for long. Always been a bit curious if there are any other universe's though, in the infiteness that is space, surely there would be? Maybe so far away that no matter how advanced the human race, or indeed any other race gets, our universe's will never meet. But seems possible.
Exactly. See other comments about the "multiverse" and the possibility that our universe is part of somethig larger, but in a cosmology in which the Big Bang is literally the start of everything, the misconception is to superimpose the history of reality on a mental construct, a timeline stretching an infinite amount of time into the past, and then to start wondering what happened "before" the big bang, when in reality there simply is no such thing as "before" the big bang.
In fact I just thought of another analogy: The lowest possible temperature is -273.15 degrees Centigrade, -459.67 Fahrenheit. People demanding to know what went before the Big Bang are like people demanding to know what matter would behave like at -300 degrees Centigrade. Surely, if you can talk about 270 degrees below zero you can equally validly talk about 300 degrees below zero? Surely if we can talk about 13 billion years ago we can talk about 20 billion years ago? (more)
You're the second person to draw that parallel and I can't understand why. I see absolutely no paradox of any kind in what I present as it's based on mathematically sound principles that I find easy to comprehend. Zeno's paradoxes are based on his inability to come to grips with infinite series and continua.
"There is no smallest positive number" bears a similarity to Zeno's supposed proof that all motion is illusory—at least as it is commonly portrayed.
Btw, the description you provide concerning the big bang is a bit dated. Recently the concept of a singularity and of a definite time at which the universe began have been substituted with alternative descriptions that are more consistent with quantum theory.
Your mathematical model of the early universe (and Zeno's paradox regarding motion) are not analogous to our present understanding of the universe. Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle applies not only to position and momentum, but also to energy and time.
Before I respond, I must ask you a question: what do you think the purpose of this video is? Why do you think I posted it? I'm only asking because you are focusing on something that I consider completely irrelevant to what I'm trying to say here.
I'm unsure what your purpose in posting this video is. Something about explaining how time can have a starting point, or more precisely how time can NOT have one?
Your purpose in making this vid is to inspire others to imagine the currently unimaginable discoveries in cosmology that may emerge in the future.
Your use of the number line was masterful in explaining aspects of prime numbers, but in this vid it is painfully anachronistic to me. Mathematical analogies may be used to suggest ways in which cosmology may evolve, but without a disclaimer, your vid will create or perpetuate a false impression in the minds of many viewers.
My one and only purpose in this video is to show that if someone is going to use the claim that the whole of reality is a finite amount of time old as "proof" that reality must therefore be a creation then they haven't thought hard enough about the claim they are making.
That in many even more modern cosmologies our universe is a mere chapter in a much much bigger story is irrelevant. That would already invalidate the premise that ALL of reality is 13.7 BYO so it's outside the scope.
I liked the plane, but the number line remains problematic. I'd prefer to hear about the theories of Andrei Linde, et al. These can be presented on a basic level to an introductory audience through the use of appropriate analogies.
Have to watch the definition of "created". Non-sentient conditions and objects can "create" every bit as much as a sentient being. Thus, the singularity called the Big Bang could have been a collision between two of the higher dimensions at a specific place in an infinite existance that is infinitely old. There was no "creator", but creation took place. Creation being defined as "a change from one form to another". Don't need a creator, after all...
Of course, but then you're looking at a cosmology in which our Universe is just a smaller entity inside something MUCH MUCH bigger, and pretty much all bets are off in that case anyway. What I am specifically arguing against HERE is a cosmology in which the Big Bang literally is The Beginning and our Universe is literally Everything, and how ontologies arguing that this means that there must have been a Creator are based on unsupportable premises.
there is psychological time as a perception and while your dreaming a two minuet dream can be perceived to last hours, and universal time is a product of some greater psychological time as becoming inherent within the movement of matter as duration ,atomised matter as coalesced thought, time
its only when youve had a thought can you dream about it ,,,is only when youve had a dream can you wake from it ,,,,,its only in the waking can you have a perception of the thought you dreamed about ( this is psychological time as thought and dream energy ),,, its only after a perception of energy that there can be a memory of it ,,, and memory is to energy what coalescence of atoms is to mater
And even if there was a first moment in time, that still wouldn't prove god. Our universe, or whatever was needed to create the big bang, could just have "always" existed (meaning since the beginning of time)
Ey when I saw the title I thought you meant "a beginning where someone didn't yell "FIRST" like they always do on the youtube comments. o_O
I ran into a crazy street preacher today, he screamed and yelled at anyone who went by apparently the "coming of the saviour" and the "end of the world" were iminent.
Seriously, i followed him down the street for like 10 mins and gave him a really hard time(militant Atheism and all). Oddly enough we did agree on one thing - utter disgust with the consumerist society.
Great video by the way, although i wouldn't expect the faith crowd to applaud the logic behind it.
Funny little Flemish (at least it has the accent) piece there rozeboosje and sorry I couldn't comment on the universe part. Don't want to make a fool of myself. :)
But isn't it true that the Big Bang is less accurately described as an explosion, more accurately described as an expansion? Isn't it also true that whether anything existed before it is inconclusive?
Yes, the Big Bang is an expansion. An expansion of something that already exists. I'm posting this video to argue against a particular kind of ontological argument based on the premise that the universe is all there is. If the universe is part of something "larger" then the whole ballgame changes significantly, and what I'm talking about here no longer applies. I addressed that possibility in my previous video in which I addressed that Sami Zaatari guy.
Don't worry about it. The point is that in this video I'm not proposing that one particular cosmology is true. What I'm saying is that if we accept that the observable universe constitutes all of reality, and it DID begin 13.7 billion years ago, that does not mean it must have been created as you are basing that argument on this a priori assumption that you cannot simply assume to be correct.
interesting...but it seems as if the example does not have a material counterpart....is there a physical example you could give, because there is no such thing as a negative anything in reality....so what is depicted here is a plan flying along sumthing until it turns into something else...that is not the same as nothing turning into something...how does this example connect with reality?
This whole example is an illustration of why it is wrong to jump to the conclusion that the scientific understanding that the Universe is approx. 13.5 billion years old must necessarily imply that it was created out of nothing because everyone making that argument bases it on the assumption that a finite age of the universe must necessarily imply that physical reality started with a Prime Occurrence. Not so.
i think i understand what you're saying, but i'm not sure. how do we posit that there was not a beginning if there was a deffanent transition...let's say that we take the expansion and collapse model and the universe collapsed into this singularity, then exploded again into the big bang there has to be a point that it stopped collaping and started expanding, there is a deffinite transition there...as there would be a definite transitional point from the what ever was prior to the universe to
(pt2) there being a universe. so either the universe or something was always there, and time just got infinitely close to 0 without being 0, or there was a deffinite transition between two states. and if there was a transition there would have to be a cause of this transition
yeah i've always liked thinking about that kind of thing, and conceptually it makes sense, like where does this table in front of me actually start if i can get infinitely close to it without touching it, but in reality you can hit that 0...at one point there was no i was not touching the table, and now i am...how do we actually cross that void, it's always been a wierd thought to me :o)
Yeah, that's what Zeno got his knickers in a twist about. He couldn't get his head around the fact that you could easily reach that zero, but still that didn't mean that on the way over to zero you didn't actually pass a final smallest "positive number" on the way down. Similarly, on the way UP from zero you don't pass a "first" positive number.
Transition? From what? Prior? How could there have been a "prior" to "everything that exists" (the original meaning of the word Universe). Obviously it's possible that our observable universe is part of something bigger, but then what I'm saying might still apply, only to the "bigger" thing that the universe is part of.
the tranition would be from say going from 3 to 2 to 1 towards 0 then somehow moving away from 0 back to 1 to 2 to 3...transitioning from moving towards to moving away...seems like there would be a reason this would happen. either necessity like the colapse and expansion model suggests, or if it was a constant state to a big bang which i think is more excepted then we would need a cause to get from a constant to a moving state...just the way i think about it though :o)
The way I see it is that even if the observable Universe is all there is, it has always existed. It's just that "always" = "13.7 billion years". This may sound counter intuitive until you turn it around. If the universe has NOT always existed there must have been points in time at which the universe has not existed. There aren't. The universe exists at ALL points in time. And we call that "always". The fact that that adds up to a finite total doesn't matter.
BTW - the negative numbers in the illustration should be ignored. They are really only there to aid the story telling, because otherwise I would have to have the plane "take off" from point 0 and I reckoned that would lead to even more confusion. For the purpose of understanding the illustration, work on the basis that the actual example starts when the plane is at point 0.
There's this commecial where a family gets into their car, and on the radio comes a song with a good beat, with the lyrics "I want to fuck you in the ass". They rock out to it, oblivious to the content in the foregn language.
I am reminded of that, when listening to this tune.
It's always really tough to wrap your mind around this.
Since there is no "before", "prior", "moment" regarding the singularity, since all that implies time and space.
The singularity had an origin just as the universe had an origin in the singularity.
So, there is "a link" but we do not know what it is.... we can speculate... I like Hawkins idea of super massive black holes coalescing might create new singularities and would explain the heat death balance of this universe.
Time is just another dimension like height, width and length, time only exists where space does. There was no space before the big bang, the fabric of the universe itself is warped and expanded by the force of gravity. My point is that you can't have negative time, because the concept of negative space doesn't make any sense. There is only space/time, and that neccasarly came from a chaotic un-scientific moment "the quantum fluxuations" you speak of. I feel tho, that quantum flux is a cop-out.
I don't think I spoke of any "quantum fluctuations" in this video. Yes, "negative time" makes no sense. In my example the plane flies in coming from Negative Numbers but that's just there to aid the visuals (if not I would have had to have the plane lifting off at 0, and that causes even MORE confusion :P). The real story simply starts at 0.
Great vid. I appreciate your thoughts on this! I have a question that I ponder that is somewhat related: What is space expanding INTO? And, another thing I've pondered, if the universe is expanding, and will eventually contract, I wonder if it's really more like a dripping faucet. A ripple of one universe being created over the top of another. Bit out there I know, just a thought. Keep up the great vids. I don't speak Dutch but I still enjoyed the catchy tune. ; D
It's not expanding "into" anything (assuming the observable universe is all there is). The way to get your head around that is to get some idea of Topology, but that is an entirely different story. Some info here: watch?v=FEvVvlBjFLE
Good video! It can also be thought of as follows: This current space-time continuum, this one reality, is simply all we can observe or all that impacts physical reality. Our current expanding universe could simply be a product of a larger process and as far as we can tell our 'singularity' is simply the first thing we can surmise. It very well must have been a result of some prior cause. After all, causality is universal. Time itself never began, it has simply always been.
I tried to find a translation on line but didn't fine one. Basically, in a nutshell, Jesus is born, the wise men arrive, people get whacky presents, then the Holy Spirit claims fatherhood, Joseph starts drinking, Mary is embarrassed, it all turns into a huge fight, Joseph knocks god's lights out, and finally Jesus puts on a new diaper and drives off in his car shouting "anyone who wants to follow me will have to run bloody fast". :P
I prefer christmas music with incomprehesible lyrics, and while ignorant of universal trends, I've been content to believe the negative numbers represent the time when the gravitational force of contraction, exceeded that of the previous bangs expansion, resulting in our current bang
The negative numbers are only in the picture to aid the narrative. The alternative would be to have the plane lifting off from point 0 and I reckoned it would get too confusing.
I dont get what you are trying to point out in the vid. And seriously, how you want us to help you find the lyrics to a dutch song we dont even know the name? I´m brazillian, english is already second language to me, as is french, and japanese... but dutch?? no, cant help xD
Sorry - I just explained the song elsewhere in the comments, so have a read for a laugh.
What I'm showing here is that many of the assumptions underlying many ontological arguments are simply not necessarily true. If you cannot be sure that the assumptions are correct, you cannot conclude that the argument is valid.
Actually, your argument here is flawed. There actually is such a thing as the smallest possible unit of time and space, called plank time and plank length.
No, soz, that would be the smallest unit of time that we can describe with the laws of physics WE invented. That these laws of physics are VERY accurate descriptions of reality I won't deny, but to make the mind-flip leading you to think that our universe is ultimately SUBJECT to them would be a mistake.
in your example, is the zero point equal to the big bang?
if so, the path of the negative numbers, is what i was referring to in the other video. Tho we cant see before that point, wouldnt it be that time was still going on infinitely in some manner before the zero point?
also, what is on the outside of the CBR must have, at the zero point, filled the universe. And whatever it is, is still outside the CBR. it has to be something, even if its empty space.
this is true. if you actually listen to what the great cosmologiests have to say about it they say that time started with the big bang as a singularity because before the big bang anything that could have existed would either be outside the universe (as compared to the speed of light) or destroyed by the singularity event of the big bang.
in essense time before the big bang is irrelevant and thus not considered.
@grey, i appreciate your input. ive heard that before many times. fortunately, im a philosopher & my consideration of abstract things extend further than the considerations of science. i do value science, very very much. just like human existence is a splinter on the timeline of the universe, the universe is a splinter of infinity. Something has to be. Nothingness cannot exist. there is matter, energy, empty space. all of those are things. these things are outside the CBR & before singularity
Talking about 'before' time is nonsensical. *If* time began at a specific point, it has always existed by definition, even if the moment of its occurence was only one second ago. Think about it ;)
whether time is infinite or finite, it has still always existed.
@Skeptic, thats what i think too. im open to opposing views, but i have a hardtime excepting nothingness. especially nothingness taking up infinite space. or that everything arrived from a true nothingness. there had to be a before. and since matter & energy cannot be created or destroyed, it must have all been here in some form.
While I agree that something did not come from absolute nothingness, my point really was: there is NO *before* time, because time consists of *every* temporal moment. This *does not* mean, however, that time is infinite in duration. Time could have been caused by a non-temporal occurrence, correct? Therefore there would in fact be no 'before', because that word only works when applied to time.
I think I'm disagreeing with you, but I'm not 100% sure - language tends to get in the way!
it is tricky to talk about. to me, time is only a concept anyway and has no physical substance. actual space uses energy to move. time is only a conceptual measurement of moments. Since time is conceptual and not physical, i dont see how it would be limited by a non-temporal state of the universe, not that i know what that means. what is non-temporal? void of matter & energy? something must fill infinite time and space. probably, based on that everything is, & there is no example of "is not"
I agree, there is no before time. Without time there is no existence and without existence there is no time. But every cause must exist within our temporal realm, because nothing can exist outside reality. Knowledge of a thing that is not inextricably linked to this reality cannot be said to exist. Time exists always, in both directions. For, if you are talking about a place outside of causality, then you are not talking about reality.
You're still trying to think "outside" all there ever was. Just like "being outside reality" means "it doesn't exist", trying to think "outside" the 13.7 billion years the universe has existed has tricked you into thinking about moments in a "time" that doesn't exist.
Here's an interesting exercise for you: Take a circle. Divide it into 360 segments, call them "degrees".
Now answer me, what is at -1 degree, and what is at 361 degrees?
See how that question is invalid? Even if you adopt the convention that -1 = 359, and 361 = 1, you're just applying a trick to get out of the dilemma. Fact is that in the context of degrees, there is no such thing as "outside" the 0 - 360 range, the invalid questions are easily asked, but that does not make them valid.
so, from the singularity backward for eternity is uncomprehensible? not even worthy to try to understand or conceive? i still have no idea what any of your thoughts are. in your example, i understand using the circle as the entirety of the universe. but there is still outside the circle & before the circle, which is equivalent to the negative #'s of the plane's timeline.
i dont understand why its so hard to think or talk about it. we can deduce much from the nature of things now.
There is no such thing as "backward" from the singularity. What is further north than the North Pole? What is the first positive integer less than zero?
I use the circle as a simple entity that is easy to picture. I could also introduce a topological TORUS as an example, but it can only be described mathematically, but it would be a good example of an unbounded finite space.
How? How do you go to a non existent place? For example, Hell, or Heaven? How do you interact with a non-existent God? How can anybody say anything rational about moments in time that never occurred? How can you speak about how to get eggs from Fa-Zoal, which is 10 miles or so beyond the north pole?
The moment you start thinking about times that never existed, you've entered the realm of science fiction. Whilst that may be fun it shouldn't be taken seriously.
i can agree with all that. however, until there is an explanation of how the singularity came to be, or if it came to be, it remains unanswered. How can it ever be answered if we dont question it?
at this point, im left with a singularity instantly formed from nothing. this goes against all observation. No one seems to be able to describe nothingness. There seems to be a giant amount of nothingness to fill. there must be something outside CBR, that something was surrounding the singularity
That's not what I'm saying. We should definitely explore the Big Bang and find out all we can about it. However, we can rest assured that we will find one of the following answers:
1) The Big Bang is an expansion of something that always existed up until then. That would still be true even if "always up until then" only amounted to 10 ^ -43 seconds.
or
2) The Big Bang is the result of something that happened in something "bigger" than our observable universe (more)
What we won't find is that there was a time in the past where there was nothing and then, *poof* there is the singularity, just like that. So there is no need to wreck your head thinking about that.
See, your mistake here is presupposing time outside of time, which will clearly make you very confused. Things can't exist outside of the totality of themselves, by definition!
If time *did not exist* before time, there can be no 'from the singularity backward for eternity', because 'eternity' didn't exist, and nor did 'backward' - both of these things being temporal phenomena.
Cheers. This came about whilst trying to explain my ideas on the Bouncing Ball videos to somebody who was commenting. Suddenly THIS example occurred to me.
En dan te bedenken dat er een gigantische rel ontstond toen Urbanus dit lied uitbracht. Moet een mens eens bij stilstaan wanneer de Moslims not eens intolerant genoemd worden.
The problem with their argument is: we only experience time as we know it to be within our universe. Just because time (as we know it) began 13.5 billion years ago, doesn't mean that there was nothing before time.
Well, that is in the event that our Universe is just part of something more extensive. If not then the Big Bang IS the beginning of the universe, and there is no such thing as "before" that.
Nope. Consider that in every decimal representation of ANY real number, ALL of the digits are in specific location. The "1" you mention in your suggestion is not linked to a specific location so what you're suggestion is actually not a number.
Ja hij heeft zijn talent, maar spijtig besteed hij het nu aan VlaamsBlokachtige prietpraat. Maar de keuze voor dit liedje is natuurlijk een goede vondst. 5*'s.
It's the first number that makes sense within the context of the laws of physics that we have devised ... But nature is not bound by our laws of physics. We create laws of physics that are increasingly accurate at describing reality, that's all.
There's a Zeno's paradox in it. The dichotomy paradox implies that - wherever you go - you can't arrive at the first half way of it, because to get halfway you must before get a quarter of the way there. And before traveling a fourth, you must travel one eighth, and so on. Hence you cannot point out the first place you've been in your journey.
Mutatis Mutandis, you can't point out the first moment of the universe.
Yes, there is no smallest positive number. The best way to understand is to try and see what would happen if you assumed there was such a number X. Well, maths shows us that for any positive number P, P / 2 is ALSO positive, AND P / 2 is less than P. So if X is a positive number then so is X/2. But X/2 is the smallest positive number, yet X/2 is less then X. That makes no sense so the assumption must be wrong. There is no number X that fits the bill.
I would not be surprised if/when it is found that some 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 lightyears down the road there's another universe. And the other direction of that road, there's another one. Go left for double that distance and hey, there's another one. Just like our galaxies. We've got billions of galaxies, and we are supposed to have a total of just one universe? Nah. In the grand scheme of things, our universe is nothing more than a speck of dust on a big black blanket of fluctuations.
by definition there is only one universe. it may be that the universe is much larger than we imagine it to be. however that big black blanket of fluctuations is the universe in your illustration.
What's the smallest real number greater than zero? OK, I see you asked that same question yourself in the video. But since I typed my question before your video got to that point, I'm going to go ahead and claim that you stole my idea. ;-)
Isn't there a similar theory that all matter and energy was once compressing into a black hole of tremendously dense energy and matter until....Big Bang.....it all exploded and our universe began and it will continue to expand until it reaches some limit and then it will all start to compress into a black hole and then ....Another Big Bang....adinfinitum.
Jesus is a dead end. A ficticious cause. But Science is an open road as new discoveries bring answers.
You make a 'valid' statement. You admit the inability to PROVE there IS a God. Yet, you make a statement of equal proportions. You admit yourself that there is NO 'small' positive numbers. Where is the beginning? Can you actually find the starting point of everything? If you cannot, then, you are not justified for NOT believing in God under the same premise YOU made. I feel this is a personal issue with you. If so, perhaps, sentiment should be taken out of logical pursuit..
wernercarrasco 1 year ago
@wernercarrasco parse failure. Does not compute.
rozeboosje 1 year ago
goeie muziek :P
hobbitsarecool 2 years ago
Dankjewel!
rozeboosje 2 years ago
answer is 42....sorry cudn't resist!
rccaulfield 2 years ago
[grin]
rozeboosje 2 years ago
There is no smallest positive number and yet the plane STILL crossed over from negative to positive. Just because you can divide something in half till you get down to like quarks and stuff, doesn't mean that it never passes because it can't. Go halfway to the wall then halfway again and repeat. will you get there ever? Or does that really only work in math? I don't know. Where does my arm stop and the air begin? Which came first? Me or the egg? oh wait, chicken or the egg?
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Exactly. "Go halfway to the wall and halfway again and repeat". The point is, you DO get to the wall. The fact that you pass an infinite number of "half way points" on the way there doesn't change that. Zeno never copped on to that. :P
rozeboosje 2 years ago
zeno? who dat be?
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Some Greek geek
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Btw this video reminds me of your "bouncing-ball" analogy which you also used to illustrate that there is no need for a "First Event" (or first bounce) to exist.
asteroth876 2 years ago
Yes, it's the result of a wee discussion I had with someone in my infinite regression video which was a direct follow on from the Bouncing Ball one. Well spotted.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Right on. Asking what happened before the universe existed is futile because there was no "before". Time itself is part of the universe and cannot exist without it.
asteroth876 2 years ago
I think the misconception about the big bang theory was that there was nothing at all then a singularity appeared and started expanding.
When I try to think of infinite's my brain hurts so I won't dwell on it for long. Always been a bit curious if there are any other universe's though, in the infiteness that is space, surely there would be? Maybe so far away that no matter how advanced the human race, or indeed any other race gets, our universe's will never meet. But seems possible.
RPNova 2 years ago
Exactly. See other comments about the "multiverse" and the possibility that our universe is part of somethig larger, but in a cosmology in which the Big Bang is literally the start of everything, the misconception is to superimpose the history of reality on a mental construct, a timeline stretching an infinite amount of time into the past, and then to start wondering what happened "before" the big bang, when in reality there simply is no such thing as "before" the big bang.
(more)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
In fact I just thought of another analogy: The lowest possible temperature is -273.15 degrees Centigrade, -459.67 Fahrenheit. People demanding to know what went before the Big Bang are like people demanding to know what matter would behave like at -300 degrees Centigrade. Surely, if you can talk about 270 degrees below zero you can equally validly talk about 300 degrees below zero? Surely if we can talk about 13 billion years ago we can talk about 20 billion years ago? (more)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
What those people don't understand is that "13.7 billion years ago" is the Absolute Zero of Time (in that particular cosmology at least)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Allee, ik hoor en Belg.
seustaceRotterdam 2 years ago
Da hedde goe gehoord
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Your name is Pino, not Zeno! :P
premed2 2 years ago
You're the second person to draw that parallel and I can't understand why. I see absolutely no paradox of any kind in what I present as it's based on mathematically sound principles that I find easy to comprehend. Zeno's paradoxes are based on his inability to come to grips with infinite series and continua.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
"There is no smallest positive number" bears a similarity to Zeno's supposed proof that all motion is illusory—at least as it is commonly portrayed.
Btw, the description you provide concerning the big bang is a bit dated. Recently the concept of a singularity and of a definite time at which the universe began have been substituted with alternative descriptions that are more consistent with quantum theory.
premed2 2 years ago
Your mathematical model of the early universe (and Zeno's paradox regarding motion) are not analogous to our present understanding of the universe. Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle applies not only to position and momentum, but also to energy and time.
premed2 2 years ago
Before I respond, I must ask you a question: what do you think the purpose of this video is? Why do you think I posted it? I'm only asking because you are focusing on something that I consider completely irrelevant to what I'm trying to say here.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I'm unsure what your purpose in posting this video is. Something about explaining how time can have a starting point, or more precisely how time can NOT have one?
premed2 2 years ago
Your purpose in making this vid is to inspire others to imagine the currently unimaginable discoveries in cosmology that may emerge in the future.
Your use of the number line was masterful in explaining aspects of prime numbers, but in this vid it is painfully anachronistic to me. Mathematical analogies may be used to suggest ways in which cosmology may evolve, but without a disclaimer, your vid will create or perpetuate a false impression in the minds of many viewers.
premed2 2 years ago
Wrong.
My one and only purpose in this video is to show that if someone is going to use the claim that the whole of reality is a finite amount of time old as "proof" that reality must therefore be a creation then they haven't thought hard enough about the claim they are making.
That in many even more modern cosmologies our universe is a mere chapter in a much much bigger story is irrelevant. That would already invalidate the premise that ALL of reality is 13.7 BYO so it's outside the scope.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I liked the plane, but the number line remains problematic. I'd prefer to hear about the theories of Andrei Linde, et al. These can be presented on a basic level to an introductory audience through the use of appropriate analogies.
premed2 2 years ago
Have to watch the definition of "created". Non-sentient conditions and objects can "create" every bit as much as a sentient being. Thus, the singularity called the Big Bang could have been a collision between two of the higher dimensions at a specific place in an infinite existance that is infinitely old. There was no "creator", but creation took place. Creation being defined as "a change from one form to another". Don't need a creator, after all...
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
Of course, but then you're looking at a cosmology in which our Universe is just a smaller entity inside something MUCH MUCH bigger, and pretty much all bets are off in that case anyway. What I am specifically arguing against HERE is a cosmology in which the Big Bang literally is The Beginning and our Universe is literally Everything, and how ontologies arguing that this means that there must have been a Creator are based on unsupportable premises.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
FIRST!
Maux4200 2 years ago
Yay! LOL
rozeboosje 2 years ago
before the beginning there was nothing but thought but that thought was of nothing but then the thought began to dream
cardellacole2 2 years ago
Not even time? No? Then how could it have been "before" the beginning?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
there is psychological time as a perception and while your dreaming a two minuet dream can be perceived to last hours, and universal time is a product of some greater psychological time as becoming inherent within the movement of matter as duration ,atomised matter as coalesced thought, time
cardellacole2 2 years ago
so the thought that thought of dreaming s and the dream that dreamt of thinking is the oneness of all time as duration
cardellacole2 2 years ago
its only when youve had a thought can you dream about it ,,,is only when youve had a dream can you wake from it ,,,,,its only in the waking can you have a perception of the thought you dreamed about ( this is psychological time as thought and dream energy ),,, its only after a perception of energy that there can be a memory of it ,,, and memory is to energy what coalescence of atoms is to mater
cardellacole2 2 years ago
so thought energy must have came before time, for a perceiver to have a perception of it
cardellacole2 2 years ago
nummer is oorspronkelijk van urbanus van anus ;)
CookingStuff 2 years ago
Inderdaad
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Opvallend dat de muziek over de geboorte van Jezus gaat =P
ForTheRestOfTime 2 years ago
Ik ben de trotse bezitter van een gevoel voor ironie :P
rozeboosje 2 years ago
And even if there was a first moment in time, that still wouldn't prove god. Our universe, or whatever was needed to create the big bang, could just have "always" existed (meaning since the beginning of time)
Ey when I saw the title I thought you meant "a beginning where someone didn't yell "FIRST" like they always do on the youtube comments. o_O
Mithcoriel 2 years ago
ROFL
True though, but some of their philosophical objections do gain some validity if you accept that there was a first occurrence
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I ran into a crazy street preacher today, he screamed and yelled at anyone who went by apparently the "coming of the saviour" and the "end of the world" were iminent.
Seriously, i followed him down the street for like 10 mins and gave him a really hard time(militant Atheism and all). Oddly enough we did agree on one thing - utter disgust with the consumerist society.
Great video by the way, although i wouldn't expect the faith crowd to applaud the logic behind it.
stagism 2 years ago
Of course not. LOL
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Funny little Flemish (at least it has the accent) piece there rozeboosje and sorry I couldn't comment on the universe part. Don't want to make a fool of myself. :)
Drynae 2 years ago
:-)
It was originally written by Urbanus
rozeboosje 2 years ago
But isn't it true that the Big Bang is less accurately described as an explosion, more accurately described as an expansion? Isn't it also true that whether anything existed before it is inconclusive?
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
Yes, the Big Bang is an expansion. An expansion of something that already exists. I'm posting this video to argue against a particular kind of ontological argument based on the premise that the universe is all there is. If the universe is part of something "larger" then the whole ballgame changes significantly, and what I'm talking about here no longer applies. I addressed that possibility in my previous video in which I addressed that Sami Zaatari guy.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Wouldn't you know, I just happen to have missed that one.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
:-)
Don't worry about it. The point is that in this video I'm not proposing that one particular cosmology is true. What I'm saying is that if we accept that the observable universe constitutes all of reality, and it DID begin 13.7 billion years ago, that does not mean it must have been created as you are basing that argument on this a priori assumption that you cannot simply assume to be correct.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
this does kind of reek like zeno's paradox
KnownNoMore 2 years ago
It's kind of like the opposite of that. ;-)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
interesting...but it seems as if the example does not have a material counterpart....is there a physical example you could give, because there is no such thing as a negative anything in reality....so what is depicted here is a plan flying along sumthing until it turns into something else...that is not the same as nothing turning into something...how does this example connect with reality?
Graffight 2 years ago
"nothing turning into something"
This whole example is an illustration of why it is wrong to jump to the conclusion that the scientific understanding that the Universe is approx. 13.5 billion years old must necessarily imply that it was created out of nothing because everyone making that argument bases it on the assumption that a finite age of the universe must necessarily imply that physical reality started with a Prime Occurrence. Not so.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
i think i understand what you're saying, but i'm not sure. how do we posit that there was not a beginning if there was a deffanent transition...let's say that we take the expansion and collapse model and the universe collapsed into this singularity, then exploded again into the big bang there has to be a point that it stopped collaping and started expanding, there is a deffinite transition there...as there would be a definite transitional point from the what ever was prior to the universe to
Graffight 2 years ago
(pt2) there being a universe. so either the universe or something was always there, and time just got infinitely close to 0 without being 0, or there was a deffinite transition between two states. and if there was a transition there would have to be a cause of this transition
Graffight 2 years ago
Yes, just like the positive numbers can get infinitely close to 0 without ever getting there. ;-)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
yeah i've always liked thinking about that kind of thing, and conceptually it makes sense, like where does this table in front of me actually start if i can get infinitely close to it without touching it, but in reality you can hit that 0...at one point there was no i was not touching the table, and now i am...how do we actually cross that void, it's always been a wierd thought to me :o)
Good video
Graffight 2 years ago
Yeah, that's what Zeno got his knickers in a twist about. He couldn't get his head around the fact that you could easily reach that zero, but still that didn't mean that on the way over to zero you didn't actually pass a final smallest "positive number" on the way down. Similarly, on the way UP from zero you don't pass a "first" positive number.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Transition? From what? Prior? How could there have been a "prior" to "everything that exists" (the original meaning of the word Universe). Obviously it's possible that our observable universe is part of something bigger, but then what I'm saying might still apply, only to the "bigger" thing that the universe is part of.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
the tranition would be from say going from 3 to 2 to 1 towards 0 then somehow moving away from 0 back to 1 to 2 to 3...transitioning from moving towards to moving away...seems like there would be a reason this would happen. either necessity like the colapse and expansion model suggests, or if it was a constant state to a big bang which i think is more excepted then we would need a cause to get from a constant to a moving state...just the way i think about it though :o)
Graffight 2 years ago
The way I see it is that even if the observable Universe is all there is, it has always existed. It's just that "always" = "13.7 billion years". This may sound counter intuitive until you turn it around. If the universe has NOT always existed there must have been points in time at which the universe has not existed. There aren't. The universe exists at ALL points in time. And we call that "always". The fact that that adds up to a finite total doesn't matter.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
interesting way to think about it. very cool :o)
Graffight 2 years ago
BTW - the negative numbers in the illustration should be ignored. They are really only there to aid the story telling, because otherwise I would have to have the plane "take off" from point 0 and I reckoned that would lead to even more confusion. For the purpose of understanding the illustration, work on the basis that the actual example starts when the plane is at point 0.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
There's this commecial where a family gets into their car, and on the radio comes a song with a good beat, with the lyrics "I want to fuck you in the ass". They rock out to it, oblivious to the content in the foregn language.
I am reminded of that, when listening to this tune.
DonQuixotedeKaw 2 years ago
ROFL
rozeboosje 2 years ago
It's always really tough to wrap your mind around this.
Since there is no "before", "prior", "moment" regarding the singularity, since all that implies time and space.
The singularity had an origin just as the universe had an origin in the singularity.
So, there is "a link" but we do not know what it is.... we can speculate... I like Hawkins idea of super massive black holes coalescing might create new singularities and would explain the heat death balance of this universe.
Truly fascinating.
Paxmax 2 years ago
It definitely is
rozeboosje 2 years ago
As always, hate the music, love the video :P
jtbovis 2 years ago
LOL
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Awesome vid. no smallest possible number. It sure puts things into perspective that the universe could be stranger than we may think.
HaleyMary 2 years ago
Yes indeed
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Time is just another dimension like height, width and length, time only exists where space does. There was no space before the big bang, the fabric of the universe itself is warped and expanded by the force of gravity. My point is that you can't have negative time, because the concept of negative space doesn't make any sense. There is only space/time, and that neccasarly came from a chaotic un-scientific moment "the quantum fluxuations" you speak of. I feel tho, that quantum flux is a cop-out.
UntamedBlueLight 2 years ago
I don't think I spoke of any "quantum fluctuations" in this video. Yes, "negative time" makes no sense. In my example the plane flies in coming from Negative Numbers but that's just there to aid the visuals (if not I would have had to have the plane lifting off at 0, and that causes even MORE confusion :P). The real story simply starts at 0.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Great vid. I appreciate your thoughts on this! I have a question that I ponder that is somewhat related: What is space expanding INTO? And, another thing I've pondered, if the universe is expanding, and will eventually contract, I wonder if it's really more like a dripping faucet. A ripple of one universe being created over the top of another. Bit out there I know, just a thought. Keep up the great vids. I don't speak Dutch but I still enjoyed the catchy tune. ; D
LooseOnTheLonghorn 2 years ago
It's not expanding "into" anything (assuming the observable universe is all there is). The way to get your head around that is to get some idea of Topology, but that is an entirely different story. Some info here: watch?v=FEvVvlBjFLE
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Wonderfully done. 5* fave
colonelkentucky81 2 years ago
Thanks!
rozeboosje 2 years ago
You just blew my fuckin mind man!
I'm glad you're around to tackle these subjects in your videos Roze because I would be fucking terrible at it.
I'll just stick to making fun of Creationists and laughing at Sarah Palin as it's much more easily done.
ogjimkenobi 2 years ago
And there is a definite need for that. :P
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Good video! It can also be thought of as follows: This current space-time continuum, this one reality, is simply all we can observe or all that impacts physical reality. Our current expanding universe could simply be a product of a larger process and as far as we can tell our 'singularity' is simply the first thing we can surmise. It very well must have been a result of some prior cause. After all, causality is universal. Time itself never began, it has simply always been.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Quite
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Noooo... Not Zero! The horror! :-)
Great vid.
I do get some, just some, dutch, and laughed twice at the song. Can you translate the whole thing? Plz?
Have a great day!
ILYIAB 2 years ago
I tried to find a translation on line but didn't fine one. Basically, in a nutshell, Jesus is born, the wise men arrive, people get whacky presents, then the Holy Spirit claims fatherhood, Joseph starts drinking, Mary is embarrassed, it all turns into a huge fight, Joseph knocks god's lights out, and finally Jesus puts on a new diaper and drives off in his car shouting "anyone who wants to follow me will have to run bloody fast". :P
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Roze.....! For the win.
mtsac1 2 years ago
Thanks!
rozeboosje 2 years ago
What is the song's name? I don't speak dutch but I liked it a lot.
Guildhelm 2 years ago
Bakske vol me stro. See my comment to ILYIAB
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I prefer christmas music with incomprehesible lyrics, and while ignorant of universal trends, I've been content to believe the negative numbers represent the time when the gravitational force of contraction, exceeded that of the previous bangs expansion, resulting in our current bang
funkskull 2 years ago
WRT music see my comment to ILYIAB
The negative numbers are only in the picture to aid the narrative. The alternative would be to have the plane lifting off from point 0 and I reckoned it would get too confusing.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
i love it when u talk universe-like ; )
oojamaflipper 2 years ago
:-)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I dont get what you are trying to point out in the vid. And seriously, how you want us to help you find the lyrics to a dutch song we dont even know the name? I´m brazillian, english is already second language to me, as is french, and japanese... but dutch?? no, cant help xD
yupiie 2 years ago
Sorry - I just explained the song elsewhere in the comments, so have a read for a laugh.
What I'm showing here is that many of the assumptions underlying many ontological arguments are simply not necessarily true. If you cannot be sure that the assumptions are correct, you cannot conclude that the argument is valid.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Lyrics, Urbanus van Anus
IAmDonar 2 years ago
Yes, my bad.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Actually, your argument here is flawed. There actually is such a thing as the smallest possible unit of time and space, called plank time and plank length.
JonathanClement140 2 years ago
No, soz, that would be the smallest unit of time that we can describe with the laws of physics WE invented. That these laws of physics are VERY accurate descriptions of reality I won't deny, but to make the mind-flip leading you to think that our universe is ultimately SUBJECT to them would be a mistake.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
in your example, is the zero point equal to the big bang?
if so, the path of the negative numbers, is what i was referring to in the other video. Tho we cant see before that point, wouldnt it be that time was still going on infinitely in some manner before the zero point?
also, what is on the outside of the CBR must have, at the zero point, filled the universe. And whatever it is, is still outside the CBR. it has to be something, even if its empty space.
your thoughts?
TheAist 2 years ago
this is true. if you actually listen to what the great cosmologiests have to say about it they say that time started with the big bang as a singularity because before the big bang anything that could have existed would either be outside the universe (as compared to the speed of light) or destroyed by the singularity event of the big bang.
in essense time before the big bang is irrelevant and thus not considered.
greycloud24 2 years ago
@grey, i appreciate your input. ive heard that before many times. fortunately, im a philosopher & my consideration of abstract things extend further than the considerations of science. i do value science, very very much. just like human existence is a splinter on the timeline of the universe, the universe is a splinter of infinity. Something has to be. Nothingness cannot exist. there is matter, energy, empty space. all of those are things. these things are outside the CBR & before singularity
TheAist 2 years ago
Talking about 'before' time is nonsensical. *If* time began at a specific point, it has always existed by definition, even if the moment of its occurence was only one second ago. Think about it ;)
whether time is infinite or finite, it has still always existed.
SkepticsClaw 2 years ago
@Skeptic, thats what i think too. im open to opposing views, but i have a hardtime excepting nothingness. especially nothingness taking up infinite space. or that everything arrived from a true nothingness. there had to be a before. and since matter & energy cannot be created or destroyed, it must have all been here in some form.
TheAist 2 years ago
While I agree that something did not come from absolute nothingness, my point really was: there is NO *before* time, because time consists of *every* temporal moment. This *does not* mean, however, that time is infinite in duration. Time could have been caused by a non-temporal occurrence, correct? Therefore there would in fact be no 'before', because that word only works when applied to time.
I think I'm disagreeing with you, but I'm not 100% sure - language tends to get in the way!
SkepticsClaw 2 years ago
it is tricky to talk about. to me, time is only a concept anyway and has no physical substance. actual space uses energy to move. time is only a conceptual measurement of moments. Since time is conceptual and not physical, i dont see how it would be limited by a non-temporal state of the universe, not that i know what that means. what is non-temporal? void of matter & energy? something must fill infinite time and space. probably, based on that everything is, & there is no example of "is not"
TheAist 2 years ago
I agree, there is no before time. Without time there is no existence and without existence there is no time. But every cause must exist within our temporal realm, because nothing can exist outside reality. Knowledge of a thing that is not inextricably linked to this reality cannot be said to exist. Time exists always, in both directions. For, if you are talking about a place outside of causality, then you are not talking about reality.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Great minds think alike :-)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
You're still trying to think "outside" all there ever was. Just like "being outside reality" means "it doesn't exist", trying to think "outside" the 13.7 billion years the universe has existed has tricked you into thinking about moments in a "time" that doesn't exist.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
exactly
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Here's an interesting exercise for you: Take a circle. Divide it into 360 segments, call them "degrees".
Now answer me, what is at -1 degree, and what is at 361 degrees?
See how that question is invalid? Even if you adopt the convention that -1 = 359, and 361 = 1, you're just applying a trick to get out of the dilemma. Fact is that in the context of degrees, there is no such thing as "outside" the 0 - 360 range, the invalid questions are easily asked, but that does not make them valid.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
so, from the singularity backward for eternity is uncomprehensible? not even worthy to try to understand or conceive? i still have no idea what any of your thoughts are. in your example, i understand using the circle as the entirety of the universe. but there is still outside the circle & before the circle, which is equivalent to the negative #'s of the plane's timeline.
i dont understand why its so hard to think or talk about it. we can deduce much from the nature of things now.
TheAist 2 years ago
AAARRGGHH
There is no such thing as "backward" from the singularity. What is further north than the North Pole? What is the first positive integer less than zero?
I use the circle as a simple entity that is easy to picture. I could also introduce a topological TORUS as an example, but it can only be described mathematically, but it would be a good example of an unbounded finite space.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
sorry to be a pain. im having a very hard time contemplating nothingness. it just doesnt compute in my brain.
TheAist 2 years ago
Oh, don't worry. But the fact that it doesn't compute may be an indication that you shouldn't, indeed, CANNOT, go there. ;-)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
oh that doesnt help. thats exactly the reason TO go there.
TheAist 2 years ago
How? How do you go to a non existent place? For example, Hell, or Heaven? How do you interact with a non-existent God? How can anybody say anything rational about moments in time that never occurred? How can you speak about how to get eggs from Fa-Zoal, which is 10 miles or so beyond the north pole?
The moment you start thinking about times that never existed, you've entered the realm of science fiction. Whilst that may be fun it shouldn't be taken seriously.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
i can agree with all that. however, until there is an explanation of how the singularity came to be, or if it came to be, it remains unanswered. How can it ever be answered if we dont question it?
at this point, im left with a singularity instantly formed from nothing. this goes against all observation. No one seems to be able to describe nothingness. There seems to be a giant amount of nothingness to fill. there must be something outside CBR, that something was surrounding the singularity
TheAist 2 years ago
That's not what I'm saying. We should definitely explore the Big Bang and find out all we can about it. However, we can rest assured that we will find one of the following answers:
1) The Big Bang is an expansion of something that always existed up until then. That would still be true even if "always up until then" only amounted to 10 ^ -43 seconds.
or
2) The Big Bang is the result of something that happened in something "bigger" than our observable universe (more)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
What we won't find is that there was a time in the past where there was nothing and then, *poof* there is the singularity, just like that. So there is no need to wreck your head thinking about that.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
See, your mistake here is presupposing time outside of time, which will clearly make you very confused. Things can't exist outside of the totality of themselves, by definition!
If time *did not exist* before time, there can be no 'from the singularity backward for eternity', because 'eternity' didn't exist, and nor did 'backward' - both of these things being temporal phenomena.
SkepticsClaw 2 years ago
I do like this bit of text from the song the best:
(yeah, it is in Dutch, duh)
De heilige geest die hing daar, te schijnen aan het plafond
In zijn blauwen training, zijn purperen plastron
Op dat moment zei Jozef: "Kijk, dat is hier mijn kleintje"
kijk naar zijn neus, het is helemaal de mijne
De heilige geest moest lachen: "Ha, ocharme sukkelaar
Dat kleintje is van mij, want ik was de ooievaar."
Jozef gaf de geest een goei mot op zijn gezicht.
Toen zaten ze meteen zonder klank en zonder licht.
Xenolupa 2 years ago
Yeah. LOL. And this one:
"Jozef kon nie volgen en diën is beginnen zuipen, en Maria van affronten wist ook niet meer waar kruipen" ROFL
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Oh, nice song! I did know the version by Urbanus (Belgian comedian, singer, actor), not this one. Cool!
By the way, nice video as well. Of course.
Xenolupa 2 years ago
Coming from a maths student, clever. Very clever.
Orygyn 2 years ago
Cheers. This came about whilst trying to explain my ideas on the Bouncing Ball videos to somebody who was commenting. Suddenly THIS example occurred to me.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
En dan te bedenken dat er een gigantische rel ontstond toen Urbanus dit lied uitbracht. Moet een mens eens bij stilstaan wanneer de Moslims not eens intolerant genoemd worden.
wimscheers 2 years ago
Precies ja!
rozeboosje 2 years ago
The problem with their argument is: we only experience time as we know it to be within our universe. Just because time (as we know it) began 13.5 billion years ago, doesn't mean that there was nothing before time.
apocalypseap 2 years ago
Well, that is in the event that our Universe is just part of something more extensive. If not then the Big Bang IS the beginning of the universe, and there is no such thing as "before" that.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
0.00000000000000000000000000001?
dackjaniels555 2 years ago
Nope. Consider that in every decimal representation of ANY real number, ALL of the digits are in specific location. The "1" you mention in your suggestion is not linked to a specific location so what you're suggestion is actually not a number.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
here's a fun one :D.
this 0.000'1 you would assume is the number that you would add to 0.999' to make 1 right?
now lets take a look at that.
0.999' x 10 = 9.999'
9.999' - 0.999' = 9
think about that
[ A x 10 - A = A x 9 ]
9 divided by 9 is 1
therefore (0.999' x 9) / 9 = 1
therefore 0.999' = 1
superchang847 2 years ago
Exactly
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Zo gaat Urbanus nog de wereld rond. Hij is tegenwoordig een nogal rechtse bal geworden. Vandaar deze tekst dus.
creationismisstupid 2 years ago
Heb ik gehoord, ja. Maar dat maakt dit liedje niet minder leuk :P
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Ja hij heeft zijn talent, maar spijtig besteed hij het nu aan VlaamsBlokachtige prietpraat. Maar de keuze voor dit liedje is natuurlijk een goede vondst. 5*'s.
creationismisstupid 2 years ago
Jolly music head hurts Im melting! Noooo!
mastrama13 2 years ago
LOL
I assume you can't understand the words. Pity, it's hilarious.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
You assume correctly. Maybe if I had I wouldnt be a formless blob right now. LOL! The vid was good though.
mastrama13 2 years ago
I could tell you exactly how small the smallest positive number is... but I would have to kill you.
Censeo 2 years ago
[grin]
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Nice job. As always.
Although i don't speak Dutch, that sounded like quite a jolly tune.
I am perhaps missing the joke :)
jamesmaybrick2001 2 years ago
Very jolly. And it's a HUGE pisstake on the story of the Nativity ;-)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Could whatever number the planck length represents be the first number it passed?
1.616252(81)×10^−35 meters
fractal420 2 years ago
A better unit would be the planck moment (is that the right name?) which is ℓP/c or the planck length divided by the speed of light, or
5.39E-44 sec. ;-)
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
Yup
rozeboosje 2 years ago
It's the first number that makes sense within the context of the laws of physics that we have devised ... But nature is not bound by our laws of physics. We create laws of physics that are increasingly accurate at describing reality, that's all.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
interestin vid.
En gelukkig toch nog een beetje Urbanus zelf @ 2:52 :D
Paperinjerate 2 years ago
Jazeker!
rozeboosje 2 years ago
There's a Zeno's paradox in it. The dichotomy paradox implies that - wherever you go - you can't arrive at the first half way of it, because to get halfway you must before get a quarter of the way there. And before traveling a fourth, you must travel one eighth, and so on. Hence you cannot point out the first place you've been in your journey.
Mutatis Mutandis, you can't point out the first moment of the universe.
italianchappy 2 years ago
Yes, there is no smallest positive number. The best way to understand is to try and see what would happen if you assumed there was such a number X. Well, maths shows us that for any positive number P, P / 2 is ALSO positive, AND P / 2 is less than P. So if X is a positive number then so is X/2. But X/2 is the smallest positive number, yet X/2 is less then X. That makes no sense so the assumption must be wrong. There is no number X that fits the bill.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Good choice on the christmas music. I almost stopped the video because of it, until I actually heard it.
Great point about the possibility of an infinite universe.
ChrisTheTruckDriver 2 years ago
Or not infinite as the case may be ;-)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I would not be surprised if/when it is found that some 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 lightyears down the road there's another universe. And the other direction of that road, there's another one. Go left for double that distance and hey, there's another one. Just like our galaxies. We've got billions of galaxies, and we are supposed to have a total of just one universe? Nah. In the grand scheme of things, our universe is nothing more than a speck of dust on a big black blanket of fluctuations.
Xenolupa 2 years ago
by definition there is only one universe. it may be that the universe is much larger than we imagine it to be. however that big black blanket of fluctuations is the universe in your illustration.
greycloud24 2 years ago
:-)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
yay!
rozeboosje 2 years ago
What's the smallest real number greater than zero? OK, I see you asked that same question yourself in the video. But since I typed my question before your video got to that point, I'm going to go ahead and claim that you stole my idea. ;-)
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
LOL
Yup. I'm the Time Travelling Plagiarist XD
rozeboosje 2 years ago
"What's the smallest real number greater than zero?"
Not very much is my answer.
Censeo 2 years ago
Rozeboosje God Pwner 2009.
rockerwere 2 years ago
:-) Thanks
rozeboosje 2 years ago
4th
robinsoncrucify 2 years ago
w00t!
rozeboosje 2 years ago
The first number it passed was 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000.... oh... just shut up will you?
There was a first positive integer that it passed though...
athywren 2 years ago
LOL
Yes. That would be 1.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
plese look at the comment i left dackjaniels555 to explain how it really didn't and having infinite numbers gives them multiple answers.
0.000'1 = 0
superchang847 2 years ago
Interesting theory!
Isn't there a similar theory that all matter and energy was once compressing into a black hole of tremendously dense energy and matter until....Big Bang.....it all exploded and our universe began and it will continue to expand until it reaches some limit and then it will all start to compress into a black hole and then ....Another Big Bang....adinfinitum.
Jesus is a dead end. A ficticious cause. But Science is an open road as new discoveries bring answers.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago