TeacherOfPhilosophy

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,539

3

4

9

12.05.2020 05:18PM

3

4

9

12.05.2020 05:18PM

-->

@fauxlaw

hardly. just been around the block a few more tours than you have. Not omniscient, just observant.

I thought you said you are "without limits" - - something like, "...so can we be endless. No limits, my friend. Try it."

How can your knowledge be "without limits" unless you're OMNISCIENT?

Topic's author

#122

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,539

3

4

9

12.05.2020 05:20PM

3

4

9

12.05.2020 05:20PM

-->

@fauxlaw

The first rule of GNOSIS is,

DO NOT TALK ABOUT GNOSIS.

#123

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,295

3

2

4

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-11-01_NutshellReadMore.html what

12.05.2020 05:36PM

3

2

4

12.05.2020 05:36PM

-->

@3RU7AL

3ru..Space is not infinitely (or indefinitely) divisible.There is a smallest possible denomination. It's called a planck-length.

Thank you for clarification and info.

1} Fuller was the one suggesting feasibility ofmicro-infinite subidivision of a macro finite Universe, not me,

2} I believe Gravitional graviton { quanta } has a micro-limited set of values,

3} since our standard model is incomplete i.e. not all is known, and since some of gravity's values is not yet part of quantum mechanics, then we can speak to what we do know, knowing full well there is much we still do not know.

..."Mead used the uncertainty principle and the gravitational effect of the photon to show that it is impossible to determine the position of an object to a precision smaller than the Planck length.

....So why is the Planck length thought to be the smallest possible length? The simple summary of Mead's answer is that it is impossible, using the known laws of quantum mechanics and the known behavior of gravity, to determine a position to a precision smaller than the Planck length.

..Pay attention to that repeated word "known." If it turns out that at very small lengths, some other version of quantum mechanics manifests itself or the law of gravity differs from our current theory, the argument falls apart.

...Since our understanding of subatomic gravity is incomplete, we know that the statement that the Planck length is the smallest possible length is on shaky ground. Still, until a better theory of quantum gravity is devised, the Planck length is the best estimate we have for a minimum length.

Topic's author

#124

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,539

3

4

9

12.05.2020 06:05PM

3

4

9

12.05.2020 06:05PM

-->

@ebuc

Yes, basically at time-space-scales "smaller" than Planck-time-space-scales, there are no traditionally understood "particles" (it's simply quantum foam).

#125

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,295

3

2

4

12.05.2020 06:27PM

3

2

4

12.05.2020 06:27PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Yes, basically at time-space-scales "smaller" than Planck-time-space-scales, there are no traditionally understood "particles" (it's simply quantum foam).

So you agree then, that there may exist quanta smaller than plancks length. You did not think there were before ?but now youve added "quantum foam" into comments as if that is something seperate from and existing below 'plancks length'?

If you read Lee Smolins stuff he will show that diametric size of Universe is varible after each crunch and expansion, as derived from hiw gravity mathematics --I forget what they were called---.

He states that the same math apllies to quantum scale being varible over times of regenertive Universe.

My belief has always been that, the Universe is finite ergo if all the energy of Universe were used to subidivide Universe to a smallest quanta, that is the limit.

Lee Smolin said it would take and accelator lab the size of our sollar system to pop one graviton out of spacetime. I'm saying the smallest graviton is one that would be reuslant of energy nearing that of Universe total/whole.

Topic's author

#126

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,539

3

4

9

12.05.2020 06:37PM

3

4

9

12.05.2020 06:37PM

-->

@ebuc

There is no "quanta" at "smaller" than Planck-time-space-scales. [LINK]

The term "quantum-foam" is a bit misleading. It's really just another way of saying, "we have no way of describing any "thing" that might be happening at that scale".

Topic's author

#127

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,539

3

4

9

12.05.2020 06:39PM

3

4

9

12.05.2020 06:39PM

-->

@ebuc

My belief has always been that, the Universe is finite ergo if all the energy of Universe were used to subidivide Universe to a smallest quanta, that is the limit.

That sounds right.

Topic's author

#128

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,539

3

4

9

12.05.2020 06:40PM

3

4

9

12.05.2020 06:40PM

-->

@ebuc

Lee Smolin said it would take and accelator lab the size of our sollar system to pop one graviton out of spacetime. I'm saying the smallest graviton is one that would be reuslant of energy nearing that of Universe total/whole.

Unfalsifiable much?

#129

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565

4

7

10

12.06.2020 01:00AM

4

7

10

12.06.2020 01:00AM

-->

@3RU7AL

How can your knowledge be "without limits" unless you're OMNISCIENT?

Are we this unaware of how this works?

A boy has all the potential of becoming a man [more mature, more educated, more worth and earning potential - more of everything] that has not yet been fulfilled. But consider that just as potential is limitless, fulfillment, as well, is limitless. Just because all has not been fulfilled does not mean that the potential has suddenly been limited. One exception: you place the limits you, yourself, have.

#130

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565

4

7

10

12.06.2020 01:03AM

4

7

10

12.06.2020 01:03AM

-->

@3RU7AL

DO NOT TALK ABOUT GNOSIS.

Who says? You? That's your limit; not mine. Freedom of speech, and all that. You certainly can muzzle yourself, and apparently do. Congratulations.

Topic's author

#131

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,539

3

4

9

12.06.2020 11:38AM

3

4

9

12.06.2020 11:38AM

-->

@fauxlaw

But consider that just as potential is limitless, fulfillment, as well, is limitless.

So you're "potentially" OMNISCIENT?

Sort of like a baby-god?

Topic's author

#132

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,539

3

4

9

12.06.2020 11:51AM

3

4

9

12.06.2020 11:51AM

-->

@fauxlaw

Who says? You? That's your limit; not mine. Freedom of speech, and all that. You certainly can muzzle yourself, and apparently do. Congratulations.

There are two types of knowledge.

Type 1: empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary (QUANTA).

Type 1 knowledge describes the INTERPERSONAL (SHARED) ENVIRONMENT that we humans navigate TOGETHER.

The other type of knowledge is GNOSIS (or, more specifically, indistinguishable from GNOSIS).

GNOSIS is direct, personal, private, experiential, qualitative, unfalsifiable, and most importantly, emotionally meaningful (QUALIA).

Now, of course, you CAN try and describe your GNOSIS (faith), but ultimately, even though this GNOSIS is extremely meaningful to you as an individual, it is unreasonable to expect anyone else to regard it as extremely meaningful to them.

#133

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,295

3

2

4