The Universe has always existed

If I can turn back time The Sophist: You know you should retract that statement! The Fool: why would I do that? The Sophist: It negates the resolution! The Fool: No it doesn’t its perfect for the resolution. The Sophist: but it negates your definition also, Universe: everything that exist at any time. The Fool: no The Sophist: How’s that? The Fool: Anytime is no time in particular. Change is everything The Sophist: You have a lot of explaining to do this Round Fool! The Fool: You know you’re pretty a demanding Sophist. The Sophist: Well that’s how arch enemies are supposed to be right! The Fool: Well it is, what it is eh! Parmenides: You mean what IS IS fool! The Sophist: And what is not is not! Parmenides: NO!! What is not does not exist. The Fool: Then what are you talking about? Parmenides: Exactly! The Sophist: Okay change bits! Heraclitus: Its always changing! Parmenides: No! No! there is no change! Well that’s how arch enemies are supposed to be right?!0 Historically Heraclitus and Parmenides were two rival philosophers. Parmenides famous for his IS IS, argument figured that if that is true well change must be an illusion. For Existence=existence, so his argument can’t be false. “For never shall this prevail, that things that are not are.” He is credit with the first formulation of Ontology, which I really don’t think had anything progress sense. In that the question is really about discovering the forms of existence. = existence. e.g. Thus to say the car is red is to explain a form of existence of the car. http://en.wikipedia.org... But things are always changing; there is never a moment when things are not changing, so that is impeccable too. Heraclitus argued heavily on change “Everything changes and nothing remains still... and... you cannot step twice into the same stream.” According to him the world was in constant flux. The Fool interprets the flux as referring to the constant change in the relations in logical nature. Most people are confused of the nature of logic. This happens to any authoritative concept because everybody wants to claim such authority and others don’t want to be wrong by it so the truth of it gets manipulated and distorted. http://en.wikipedia.org... Plato demonstrates that the universe exist and what changes is the forms. Reality vs Recognition part 2 Observations are only recognitions. We know there is radio waves and radiation coming from our phones or internet, but we don’t see this. Scientists often think we see the real 100% directly. But our perception is post-processing. Information is transduced through the senses to chemical electrical action potentials up nerves which get organized in the brain then to our mind. We learn the world through the relations of ideas. These provide the form, (organization of the external world). An object is a set of relations, made up of properties of mind.(colour shape, size,etc) This set of relations stores in the mind/memory as an idea. You have been fooled! let’s say we are watching Inferno and Rouge playing pool. We watch a pool ball move and knock the next over. We see this many times. We see cause and effect. A sophist is spotted under the table. He has two big magnets and the pool balls had steal cores. He had been moving one ball and the next they weren’t knocking. What happens do you perception of cause and effect? Its suddenly vanishes, for it was you mind putting cause and effect on your physical atmosphere, it was never in the balls. As a matter a fact we never see a knock we only see one ball move and then the next one move, you mind does the rest. You’ve been Fooled! What time is it? It is the same way we extrapolate time on the world, time is just relation of change. What we use as time is simply rotation of the earth in relation its axis. (I already said this in untimely fool) and we compare that change with other change, but there is no actual time in particular, there is only change! The time we put on the universe like the big bang is just arbitrary to the apparent explosion. It’s not related to existence. A bale of straw The Fool: I really felt that you didn’t say anything related to my argument. Sophist: You said Logic is based off of the senses. Math is on the same level as logic, science can’t trusted and space is infinite. The Fool: I didn’t say any of that! I said math if the logic of quantity. The Fool: I said nothing about infinite. You said that. I said things change form. I don’t have that kind of information. We could never know infinite. There is no way to check. We should only say, we don’t recognize an end. Quantum THEORY?? People and scientist forget quantum mechanics is only a THEORY and a very imperfect one at that. So any theory based form it is an uncertain theory within an uncertain theory. When we get something like an uncertainty principle or random happenings. That is a lack of an explanation, for we are no better off with random then complete ignorance. RANDOM IS IGNORANCE. Principle of sufficient reason. Everything in the universe has a cause. Aka something cannot come from nothing. x->y conditional The Sophist: I disagree as one of your key points was, "Matter or energy is never created or destroyed. The Fool: you could never ever claim something comes from nothing there is no way to tell between not knowing where it came from. Hawking it talking about recognition, trust me he is not going give and just make something up to fill the gap. They don’t show anything Sophist: Also Olbers paradox and the Heath Death Paradox play into each other. 1) Heat Death shows that it can’t be infinite in age and size because there would be no stars or light. ;) 2) Olbers shows that if it is infinite in age(ALWAYS), size is infinite(constant expansion) the sky would be completely filled with stars. :0 They are contradictory and they are both bold assumption. Ad Homina Andromina! Sophist: Audience look what he did to me! He said this and that and the other thing. The Fool: Audience! I confess, I did say this! And I did say that! But I swear to god, you got to believe me, on all my heart, I didn’t’ say the other thing! The Fool: Nor did I have sexual relations with that woman….. RoyalPaladin. RoyalPaladin: yes he did it was awesome, were having a baby. The Fool: It wasn’t me! ;) Let’s draw straws! Sophist: Straw man! Straw man! I never said “based on my awesome physicalism argument consciousness must be proven to know the universe exist.” The Fool: that was under the heading (JUST FOR FUN!) Sophist: I never said prove the immaterial not consciousness! What are you a Fool! The Fool: you want me to prove NOT material!!? Maybe you should consider becoming a Buddest monk. It is only there, in a deep meditation, when your mind is absolutely clear of all thoughts will you find the answer you seek. Except try doing it………ON WEED. It was fun, I smoked but I didn't inhale. The denouement The Fool: you know Sophist, I liked you a lot better this round, The Sophist: Why is that? The Fool: You were like a little less me budda little more moose! Ohh!.. The Sophist: :0 Review of key points 1. Matter or energy is never created or destroyed. (Law of conservation, and by law of non-contradiction) 2. Energy is, un-stabilization (definition of energy) 3. The universe is always changing. (un-stabilization is change) 4. New things are forming and un-forming. (un-stabilized change of relations of matter and mind) C Therefore the universe is eternal and changeing. These were independent arguments. C1 What IS IS and what is not does not exist. (law of non-contradiction) C2 The universe is the whole that is all. (via explanation of elementary fallacy) C3 Time is not a part of the universe. (via untimely fool) Come on, you can’t’ vote for con, he is the bad guy! ;) And he is a Moose for god’s sakes! That doesn’t even make sense! Does that even count? The Fool wins by default! Yaa ;) Vote for a Human vote The Fool!