Digsy Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 He doesn't. "As best we can tell;" and given the quality of modern scientific instruments, that's pretty darn good. As for things that are definitively impossible; show me an odd number which is divisible by four; or a number which has a fractional square root. Show me a white dwarf star with twice the mass of our Sun... there are an endless list of things which are impossible even in theory. I never mentioned that anything was possible, everything contained within those 11 dimensions can only function within the boundaries of those dimensions. And if the dimensions are infinite then anything that can/have/will happen within them has just as infinite a chance of happening again. Why do I think dimensions are infinite. Just because a sheet of paper is destroyed it does not mean that it takes the first and second dimensions with it. It just simply abides by the rules of those dimensions whilst it exists as a sheet of paper. The same applies to all the dimensions, even if we removed all the matter in the universe, the dimensions would still exist, you just wouldn't be able to observe them. The size of the universe at present has two figures attached to it, one figure is the fact and science accepts it as the size of our (observable) universe, the other is the theoretical calculable universe (which derives it's figures from the observable universe). Both figures increase with every satellite upgrade. Here is a nice pic to explain my point. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/picturesoftheday/8359278/Pictures-of-the-day-3-March-2011.html Now if you travelled down that tunnel of light and reached the end, would you be in a gap too small to fit, or would you see exactly the same when you whipped your camera out and took another picture. Personally I believe that you'd never reach the end, and would get lost trying to. I once sat on a train with Sir Patrick Moore (1996ish), I says to him "how big is the universe" he gave me a figure, I told him it was nonsense, he asked why I came to that conclusion. I told him that all the "noise" (name given my people that know no better) seen on the current photo's of space were in fact more galaxies. He looked at me a little doubtful, I said "yup that's right, every little spec of insignificant noise is in fact more than you are willing to accept, and I have a way of proving it". He said "how can you prove it?". I said "just wait until they upgrade the satellites and get a better picture, you'll see I'm right with your own eyes". He said "we'll just have to wait and see won't we". Since then Hubble has been revamped and I was proven right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Of course you wouldn't be in a gap, the universe is closed on itself, it's not a box where you can squeeze yourself into a corner and be looking at the boundary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Of course you wouldn't be in a gap, the universe is closed on itself, it's not a box where you can squeeze yourself into a corner and be looking at the boundary. So your saying I'd end up where I started from eventually? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Identical at the point it's born (or hatched, or created), yes. What's your point? It's still not a resurrection of the original animal, it's just physically identical when created. Firstly I'm not suggesting the soul has a body and secondly I reckon my DNA and my genes within the DNA are me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 If we had the technology to scan to that resolution, it wouldnt be long till we could 'write' the scan back into another brain. Who would be who then? Reminds me of the idea of teleportation, actually being a 'copy and destroy the original' machine. Unless there is a way round the uncertainty principle teleportation will never happen. In Star Trek they had to invent a "Heisenberg Compensator" to get round that limitation and in a lot of sci-fi they just ignore it otherwise there would be no story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Firstly I'm not suggesting the soul has a body and secondly I reckon my DNA and my genes within the DNA are me. What make you, "YOU" is not your genes or DNA alone as that just makes your physical body. Your consciousness and how you perceive yourself is made up from the data received from your senses throughout your life's experiences. Identical twins for instance, may have exactly the same DNA and they may look the same but they are both individual beings with their own thoughts, dreams and outlook on life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 What make you, "YOU" is not your genes or DNA alone as that just makes your physical body. Your consciousness and how you perceive yourself is made up from the data received from your senses throughout your life's experiences. Identical twins for instance, may have exactly the same DNA and they may look the same but they are both individual beings with their own thoughts, dreams and outlook on life. “Identical twins may not be nearly as identical as once believed. Research in 2005 found that identical twins differ in how their genes express themselves. Now scientists have learned that all identical twins may actually differ genetically from their partners to some degree.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23276953/ns/health-health_care/ DNA is specific to the person and I suggest that if someone looses their memory for example or suffers brain damage or alzheimer's disease, they are still the same person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Firstly I'm not suggesting the soul has a body and secondly I reckon my DNA and my genes within the DNA are me. So you don't think your environment and experiences are part of you as well then. You don't think you'd be a different person if you'd been born in a different country, gone to a different school, had different parents and friends... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 So your saying I'd end up where I started from eventually? Pretty much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 So you don't think your environment and experiences are part of you as well then. You don't think you'd be a different person if you'd been born in a different country, gone to a different school, had different parents and friends... What you are talking about there is personality whereas DNA represents the actual physical person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.