Poll: Everything Exists.

[Fwee]

"Nothing is true; everything is permitted."

While true that the enormous space in this universe is limited, this is but the universe that we ourselves observe. Everything in this universe that comprises matter is also part of countless other realities and universes. Plus it's a good chance that we're all just a big hallucination, so chances are if someone has even thought of something it exists out there somewhere.
Travis Touchdown proposes a chilling possibility about 4:45 into this video.

 

[Rhaff]

Not everything is possible if the laws of the universe act constantly. For instance I can imagine a large amount of mass without gravity, but no matter how large the the 4 dimensions are if the law of gravity remains constant its an impossible object.

OT: Everything does exist. Not everything is real.

I think therefore I am. I am therefore everything is.

Explanation. I know I exist because I can think. Thinking requires something to happen. Something=/Nothing ergo I exist. I might not be human, i might be only a thought, but I still exist as that thought. I know everything I sense exists because even if what I sense isn't true it still exists as an illusion that effects my mind. Something cannot be affected by nothing. This entire argument can be represented mathematically.

Nothing can never change or be anything but nothing without something.
0=0
Something can change
-II (boundary of "something" where I is infinity)
My thinking is something.
e.g. 1
Something cannot be changed by nothing unless it is to nothing itself.
1+0=1 1*0=0
I remain a changing something ergo somethings are effecting me.
1+1=2 1*3=3

Therefore everything I sense exists in some form or another.

Uhhmm I think you just broke my brain...

 

[Kataskopo]

Uhh, I think is could be Interesting for you all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Multiverse_hypotheses_in_physics

 

[Andothul]

There is no impossible only varying degrees of improbable

 

[Robert Sanders]

We don't know whether space is infinite or not. But yes, if space were infinite everything within the physical laws of our universe has happened, is happening or will happen.

We can ever further extend the concept to an infinite amount of universes, all with different physical laws. Every videogame you ever played has it's own universe. Every movie does, every cartoon does. Every bit of fantasy that ever crossed your mind does. With an infinite amount of universes, everything exists.

To the naysayers out there:
Our bubble of matter (usually called the universe) is expanding out into space, and there doesn't seem to be any boundaries to this space. Thus infinite space. Infinite space. And we know that our bubble originated from a big bang (probably). What are the odds, that this is the ONLY big bang in this infinite space? I would say.... 0.
So, with infinite space, and a (possible) infinite amount of "universes"(or big bangs) then anything and everything is possible .


Short comment: there are many big bangs out there. so anything is possible.

No. The universe doesn't need to be expanding into empty space.

Fine. I have no real proof it does. But there must still be several big bangs out there, several bubbles of matter. So, anything is possible. Pretty much.

Actually......... The old theories stated that universal expansion would slow to a stop and reverse as it's gravity pulled it back in on itself and formed a new cosmic egg. The other theory was that the universe would expand at a constant rate forever as entropy saw that every star burned out. Thing is, the universe is accelerating outwards, so who's got their foot on the gas? and if space isn't infinite, what's outside of it?

 

[JesterRaiin]

I'm not exactly sure when whole scientific world united and announced that it's impossible to observe interior of Black Hole and noone ever, to the end of time will try to accomplish this task ?
Could you kindly provide me with a citation ?

Is Wiki enough? It has a comprehensive explanation of Event horizon [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon] and even in the black hole article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hole] "information from that event cannot reach an outside observer, making it impossible to determine if such an event occurred.[43]" (the 43 is the refference to [i}Cosmic Catastrophes[/i] by Craig Wheeler, book published by the respected Cambridge university Press). I guess I could go to other sources, such as (if my memory serves me right) The Universe in a Nuthsell of Stephen Hawkin. Will it never be tried? I don't know, but if relativity stands in the information front (as in no information can travel faster than the speed of light), it seems like it sill be a futile enterprise.

Now, now, my young Padawan. While i'm, nothing less than awed by your skilfull mastery over wikipedia, there's no need to answer questions that weren't asked.
I'm not interested with current assumptions of mainstream modern scientific world on the topic. I am curious about source of your strong belief stating that this specific aspect of our knowledge won't ever change, no matter what, even thought most things we know about black holes are strictly theoretical.

As noted above, ohysical laws work equally in all the Universe

Please remind me, when was the last time we proved that ANY of our physical laws work inside of Black Hole ?

From wikipedia:
"Work by James Bardeen, Jacob Bekenstein, Carter, and Hawking in the early 1970s led to the formulation of black hole thermodynamics.[28] These laws describe the behaviour of a black hole in close analogy to the laws of thermodynamics by relating mass to energy, area to entropy, and surface gravity to temperature. The analogy was completed when Hawking, in 1974, showed that quantum field theory predicts that black holes should radiate like a black body with a temperature proportional to the surface gravity of the black hole."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
Took me 10 seconds.

Took me three seconds to spot keywords "analogy", "should" and "predicts" which are closely related to another keyword, precisely : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
I'm not 100% sure, but i suspect that no theory is impervious to change, reevaluation, revision and in extremal cases - to complete rejection. If so, please, let me have my doubts and allow me to further laugh at any definitive statement based on nothing more than "theory".

 

[oktalist]

If the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct (which seems likely) then everything that is physically possible has actually happened/will happen/is happening (past/future/present tense makes no sense here). If a particle happened to spin in a slightly different way a few nanoseconds after the big bang, then the laws of physics would've turned out very differently, and maybe we'd be living in 2-dimensional space and be made out of pixels instead of atoms, collecting coins and eating mushrooms to get big.

How about a round square? Don't know how one would look like, but I know I would be mightily impressed did I ever see one.

I found a square circle, is that good enough?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lp_space

 

[Kataskopo]

I'm not exactly sure when whole scientific world united and announced that it's impossible to observe interior of Black Hole and noone ever, to the end of time will try to accomplish this task ?
Could you kindly provide me with a citation ?

Is Wiki enough? It has a comprehensive explanation of Event horizon [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon] and even in the black hole article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hole] "information from that event cannot reach an outside observer, making it impossible to determine if such an event occurred.[43]" (the 43 is the refference to [i}Cosmic Catastrophes[/i] by Craig Wheeler, book published by the respected Cambridge university Press). I guess I could go to other sources, such as (if my memory serves me right) The Universe in a Nuthsell of Stephen Hawkin. Will it never be tried? I don't know, but if relativity stands in the information front (as in no information can travel faster than the speed of light), it seems like it sill be a futile enterprise.

Now, now, my young Padawan. While i'm, nothing less than awed by your skilfull mastery over wikipedia, there's no need to answer questions that weren't asked.
I'm not interested with current assumptions of mainstream modern scientific world on the topic. I am curious about source of your strong belief stating that this specific aspect of our knowledge won't ever change, no matter what, even thought most things we know about black holes are strictly theoretical.

As noted above, ohysical laws work equally in all the Universe

Please remind me, when was the last time we proved that ANY of our physical laws work inside of Black Hole ?

From wikipedia:
"Work by James Bardeen, Jacob Bekenstein, Carter, and Hawking in the early 1970s led to the formulation of black hole thermodynamics.[28] These laws describe the behaviour of a black hole in close analogy to the laws of thermodynamics by relating mass to energy, area to entropy, and surface gravity to temperature. The analogy was completed when Hawking, in 1974, showed that quantum field theory predicts that black holes should radiate like a black body with a temperature proportional to the surface gravity of the black hole."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
Took me 10 seconds.

Took me three seconds to spot keywords "analogy", "should" and "predicts" which are closely related to another keyword, precisely : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
I'm not 100% sure, but i suspect that no theory is impervious to change, reevaluation, revision and in extremal cases - to complete rejection. If so, please, let me have my doubts and allow me to further laugh at any definitive statement based on nothing more than "theory".

Hmm, maybe you are referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

[i7omahawki]

Space is infinite, therefore everything you can think of is out their somewhere.

It like the infinate amount of monkeys typing on an infinate amount of keyboards will at some point get you a complete library of all the books ever written.

Do you agree with this?

Wouldn't time be a better infinite dimension to use as the basis for this claim? Seeing as I don't recall anybody saying space was infinite, only currently expanding.

If time is infinite then everything that is possible must've happened before and must happen again. This moment is actual, and everything actual must be possible, therefore you will live this life again, for an infinite number of times. And indeed you already have.

Haha, that's the delibritely provocative logic behind Nietzsche's 'eternal return'. If you're interested...

 

[TheVioletBandit]

I'm sure most will disagree but, "the anything is possible argument" is actually a more logical stance than the arguments against it. As technology develops, and we look farther out into the universe we are consistently finding things we didn't expect, and don't understand. Like for example massive amounts of liquid water, and vapor floating in space like a giant sea pouring out of the mouth of an enormous black-hole, and no I'm not making that up. Anyway my point is that if our observation is that we are constantly surprised by the universe and constantly proved wrong by new findings then shouldn't we expect the unexpected?

 

[hoboman29]

I believe anything is possible I also believe that a lot of it is highly unlikely

 

[JesterRaiin]

From wikipedia:
"Work by James Bardeen, Jacob Bekenstein, Carter, and Hawking in the early 1970s led to the formulation of black hole thermodynamics.[28] These laws describe the behaviour of a black hole in close analogy to the laws of thermodynamics by relating mass to energy, area to entropy, and surface gravity to temperature. The analogy was completed when Hawking, in 1974, showed that quantum field theory predicts that black holes should radiate like a black body with a temperature proportional to the surface gravity of the black hole."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
Took me 10 seconds.

Took me three seconds to spot keywords "analogy", "should" and "predicts" which are closely related to another keyword, precisely : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
I'm not 100% sure, but i suspect that no theory is impervious to change, reevaluation, revision and in extremal cases - to complete rejection. If so, please, let me have my doubts and allow me to further laugh at any definitive statement based on nothing more than "theory".

Hmm, maybe you are referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Once i killed a few completely innocent people (damn you, STALKER:Shadow over Chernobyl and those accursed vegetation of yours), but now i'm sure, that i referred to theory in general, and not its special type. (Checking). Nope, that changes nothing. I uphold my request.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

I'm not exactly sure when whole scientific world united and announced that it's impossible to observe interior of Black Hole and noone ever, to the end of time will try to accomplish this task ?
Could you kindly provide me with a citation ?

Is Wiki enough? It has a comprehensive explanation of Event horizon [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon] and even in the black hole article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hole] "information from that event cannot reach an outside observer, making it impossible to determine if such an event occurred.[43]" (the 43 is the refference to [i}Cosmic Catastrophes[/i] by Craig Wheeler, book published by the respected Cambridge university Press). I guess I could go to other sources, such as (if my memory serves me right) The Universe in a Nuthsell of Stephen Hawkin. Will it never be tried? I don't know, but if relativity stands in the information front (as in no information can travel faster than the speed of light), it seems like it sill be a futile enterprise.

Now, now, my young Padawan. While i'm, nothing less than awed by your skilfull mastery over wikipedia, there's no need to answer questions that weren't asked.
I'm not interested with current assumptions of mainstream modern scientific world on the topic. I am curious about source of your strong belief stating that this specific aspect of our knowledge won't ever change, no matter what, even thought most things we know about black holes are strictly theoretical.

As noted above, ohysical laws work equally in all the Universe

Please remind me, when was the last time we proved that ANY of our physical laws work inside of Black Hole ?

From wikipedia:
"Work by James Bardeen, Jacob Bekenstein, Carter, and Hawking in the early 1970s led to the formulation of black hole thermodynamics.[28] These laws describe the behaviour of a black hole in close analogy to the laws of thermodynamics by relating mass to energy, area to entropy, and surface gravity to temperature. The analogy was completed when Hawking, in 1974, showed that quantum field theory predicts that black holes should radiate like a black body with a temperature proportional to the surface gravity of the black hole."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
Took me 10 seconds.

Took me three seconds to spot keywords "analogy", "should" and "predicts" which are closely related to another keyword, precisely : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
I'm not 100% sure, but i suspect that no theory is impervious to change, reevaluation, revision and in extremal cases - to complete rejection. If so, please, let me have my doubts and allow me to further laugh at any definitive statement based on nothing more than "theory".

Hmm, maybe you are referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

I have read rather recently that a lot of scientist now believe we need to revise are black-hole theory's because of phenomenon we have observed with newer better telescopes. Of course this kind of constant revision is always going to happen as we are proved wrong over and over. Which is in big part why I love science, it's almost always wrong, and that makes life more surprising.

 

[Master_of_Oldskool]

Not in our own universe, no, but if we assume that the multiversal (adjective form of multiverse?) model of reality is true, then yes, everything does exist in some reality or other.

And as soon as we find a way to travel to a Pokémon-based version of reality, I for one will be off like a shot.

 

[Jonluw]

This assumption is based on a misconception about the concept of infinity.

Something being infinite doesn't mean that everything will happen.
e.g. If you lock Verne Troyer in a room with a basketball and a basket, he won't manage to perform a slam-dunk even if he stays in the room for infinity.

If you roll an infinite number of die (D6), none of these die will end up as a 'seven', in spite of the infinite number of die. It is simply an impossible outcome due to the conditions that are in place.

Of course, if you go with multiverse theory, i.e. account for changes in the laws of nature, you could say that everything is possible, but it doesn't look like that's what you're getting at.

 

[PatrickXD]

Space isn't infinite, if it is expanding then how can it be?
We just don't know how far it can expand.

 

[Rafael Dera]

not everything is possible. For example, water cannot be made to boil at -20°C at atmospheric pressure. Regardless of how large space is (or how many monkeys you have).
\thread.

 

[Madara XIII]

Space is infinite, therefore everything you can think of is out their somewhere.

It like the infinate amount of monkeys typing on an infinate amount of keyboards will at some point get you a complete library of all the books ever written.

Do you agree with this?

In this universe, Nope!

Simple as that. Especially if we're going by the theory of the Expanding Universe in which it started at one finite point and continued to expand after the big bang.
It eventually will reach a stopping point, because for something of finite capacity expanding to an infinite amount of space is a completely unfounded and silly idea.

 

[Madara XIII]

Space isn't infinite, if it is expanding then how can it be?
We just don't know how far it can expand.

Another brilliant man here! I'd give you a cookie, but then I'd have to chloroform you....want a chloroform cookie!?

All joking aside yes you are correct.
That's like me with a Bottle of water and deciding to pour it out all over the sidewalk. It will eventually run out at a certain point.

After all the universe started with a single and highly condensed particle. It'd be virtually impossible to fit anything of infinite space into a finite space.
That idea is about as silly as believing in a fat man who comes down your chimneys once a year to molest you.......

*Receives a Note from my Editor*

Wait he gives you toys!?!? That's not what my parents told me DX