...

Death and Taxes

Death and Taxes
Sorry, both involve change.:)

I was going to say Nothing and Forever. No matter what changes, nothing isn't going to include it anyway. If you believe in Christianity, and god destroys the universe, he can create something else. Forever is as long as anything does, will, and has existed. If you don't believe in Christianity, then if the universe dies out, we could have a big crunch, and then another big bang. Again, forever would be a timeline that includes this. I suppose that could change as time progresses, but the MEANING stays the same.

I guess you could also argue that the past doesn't change. That is, unless you find a way to go back in time.

Maybe I got one of the two? I'm no philosipher.

Death and time which are mututally inclusive.

I was going to say Nothing and Forever. No matter what changes, nothing isn't going to include it anyways. If you believe in Christianity, and god destroys the universe, he can create somthing else. Forever is as long as anything does, will, and has existed. If you don't believe in Christianity, then if the universe dies out, we could have a big crunch, and then another big bang. Again, forever would be a timeline that includes this. I suppose that could change as time progresses, but the MEANING stays the same.

I guess you could also argue that the past doesn't change. That is, unless you find a way to go back in time.

Maybe I got one of the two? I'm no philosipher.
Interesting thoughts you have. However, Nothing and Forever are concepts with-out objects, that is, they are not material objects. As far as the past, it does not still exist today.

I will however concede you are technically accurate about, “Nothing, and forever” given that I did not qualify “Absolute” as being material objects.

However by my meaning of absolutes your answers are not correct.

Good thinking though on your part.

Interesting thoughts you have. However, Nothing and Forever are concepts with-out objects, that is, they are not material objects. As far as the past, is does not still exist today.

I will however concede you are technically accurate about, “Nothing, and forever” given that I did not qualify “Absolute” as being material objects.

However by my meaning of absolutes your answers are not correct.

Good thinking though on your part.
Well, it was worth a try.

Is this a riddle? It might be too hard for me, if it is.

There are none according to Buddhism, but...

How about Greed and Ignorance? :)

There are none according to Buddhism, but...

How about Greed and Ignorance? :)
Greed and Ignorance are both subjective concepts which do change, and do not exist in the physical world.:)

(0) and...

Or space and matter?

But I believe the only thing existing eternally would be the Almighty... ::), but that is not what you are asking Dark Crow, is it?

(0) and ...

or space and matter?

But I believe the only thing existing eternally would be the Almighty...::), but that is not what you are asking Dark Crow, is it?
O.K.- I'll give one and it should make the other easier. . It has survived untouched for many thousands of years and will survive to the end of time. The North Star i.e. Polaris which remains fixed in position. One fixed reference point in the heavens, which enables us to make sense of all other units of measure. If there were no fixed reference point, there could be no North, South, East or West.

A star that survives until the end of time? I don't think so.

Eternity means "time without end"... in reality, is there time without end??

In monotheism/faith/belief, not reality, eternity *is believed* to exist as is a god who inhabits it.

A star that survives until the end of time? I don't think so.
You had better hope so, four billion people on earth would be in a constant state of confusion, and travel would be limited to a very short distance. And stand still, you look as nervous as a whore in church.:)

I'm going to have to agree with NK. And without Polaris, the earth would still have a north south east and west. They are based on the magnetic field the planet is in. Except for true north, which is marked by Polaris. This DID change, though, as long ago, the celestial marker for true north was a star called Thuban.

Also, if you're talking about the north star itself, it does change. It's location changes, it's mass changes, it emits energy by giving off light. I'm not sure what type of star it is, but I'm sure the chemical makeup of it also changes.

Eternity means "time without end"....in reality, is there time without end???

In monotheism/faith/belief, not reality, eternity *is believed* to exist as is a god who inhabits it.
Don’t wax philosophical on me now sweet cheeks, eternity is really long, especially near the end.:)

You had better hope so, four billion people on earth would be in a constant state of confusion, and travel would be limited to a very short distance. And stand still, you look as nervous as a whore in church.:)Our sun indeed has a limited life span:
What is the life expectancy of the sun? (http://ask.yahoo.com/20040121.html)

Mr. Crow, I just checked again; this is the Philosophy Board!

:):):)

So... what is the other? Perhaps it is a little bit more legitimate.

Sorry, both involve change.:)
Who changes from dead?

So...what is the other? Perhaps it is a little bit more legitamate.
O.K. one down and another to go…longitude & latitude

...
Eternity and never

Mr. Crow, I just checked again; this is the Philosophy Board!

:):):)
So it is, what do you know, and I thought it was the graveyard. :D

Who changes from dead?
The change is to dead, but not back again; therefor non-existence.

Eternity and never
Never is eternity :)

Our sun indeed has a limited life span:
What is the life expectancy of the sun? (http://ask.yahoo.com/20040121.html)
Stand still, I can't read your posts:D

Interesting thoughts you have. However, Nothing and Forever are concepts with-out objects, that is, they are not material objects.
(Snip)
However by my meaning of absolutes your answers are not correct.


I only quote this because I want to be an arse :)

I had to think about this for a minute, but I think you can dismiss latitude and longitude, also. If you're referring to them as the physical locations on continents, and geographic locations, then you shuold remember that the earth's crust is made of plates. These plates move, and the latitude and longitude coordinates of a physical location can change slightly. Supposedly, the earth started with one continent, Pangea, I believe was the name they gave it. The locations of almost everything has certainly changed since then.\

If you mean the lines we draw on a globe, then refer to what you told me earlier. They aren't real objects, just concepts, so by your meaning of absolutes, that can't e right either...

Sorry :P

I only quote this because I want to be an arse :)

I had to think about this for a minute, but I think you can dismiss lattitude and longitude, also. If you're referring to them as the physical locations on continents, and geographic locations, then you shuold remember that the earth's crust is made of plates. These plates move, and the lattitude and longitude coordinates of a physical location can change slightly. Supposedly, the earth started out with one continent, Pangea, I believe was the name they gave it. The locations of almost everything has certainly changed since then.\

If you mean the lines we draw on a globe, then refer to what you told me earlier. They aren't real objects, just concepts, so by your meaning of absolutes, that can't e right either...

Sorry :P
Well arse,:) are there no absolutes: everything is relative?

Your vision of philosophy and the introduction of your concepts of science have, over the past, been shown to mutually exclusive.

Your vision of philosophy and the introduction of your concepts of science have, over the past, been shown to mutually exclusive.
And in English that means… :)

And in English that means… :)
Haha, ouch. This thread is COLD. But it's all in good fun, right? RIGHT?

Also, I want to revise an earlier post. I'm changing my "The Past" to "History." The past may not exist today, but history does, as it refers to knowledge about the past. It's still not physical, but it meets the same criteria as nothing and forever now, I believe.

Haha, ouch. This thread is COLD. But it's all in good fun, right? RIGHT?

Also, I want to revise an earlier post. I'm changing my "The Past" to "History." The past may not exist today, but history does, as it refers to knowledge about the past. It's still not physical, but it meets the same criteria as nothing and forever now, I believe.
Good move, and that proves history can be re-written, right. :D

Good move, and that proves history can be re-written, right. :D

Damn... walked right into that one. Unless you consider it an annotation instead of a rewrite :)

Quote Home Simpson: "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"

Haha, ouch. This thread is COLD. But it's all in good fun, right? RIGHT?

Also, I want to revise an earlier post. I'm changing my "The Past" to "History." The past may not exist today, but history does, as it refers to knowledge about the past. It's still not physical, but it meets the same criteria as nothing and forever now, I believe.
Knowledge, now that is an interesting word, given the relativity of the world.

Damn...walked right into that one. Unless you consider it an annotation instead of a rewrite :)

Quote Home Simpson: "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"
Indeed, when we interpret from particulars to generalities we often get it wrong.

And in English that means… :)
In reality your using your own strawman riddle to pump up your own post.

So that's what you think. And you reached that conclusion by Deduction or Induction

Well arse,:) are there no absolutes: everything is relative?
According to this, it looks like he used inductive reasoning. Since nothing is absolute, you can't deduct anything from it. Right? Oh wait, that was deductive..
Since nothing is absolute (for the most part), the majority of the entirety of existence (or most of it), nothing (or almost nothing) can be deducted from it (or part of it).

Right?

Um... what?

According to this, it looks like he used inductive reasoning. Since nothing is absolute, you can't deduct anything from it. Right? Oh wait, that was deductive..
Since nothing is absolute (for the most part), the majority of the entirety of existance (or most of it), nothing (or almost nothing) can be deducted from it (or part of it).

Right?

Um...what?
From nothing is absolute we might deduce that all is theory; which of course religion, Evolution and Politics is.

Ya think? Whooops, forgot science

What are two absolutes that exist in eternity and never change?...

The laws of time and space. Our interpretation of time and space may change, but the laws themselves will not.

The laws of time and space. Our interpretation of time and space may change, but the laws themselves will not.
Given the history of Einstein, Galileo, and Kepler I can’t help but be skeptical. :)

The laws of time and space. Our interpretation of time and space may change, but the laws themselves will not.

Nice.

One thing though... I believe the bender quote in your signature was "Must be my lucky shades" in that episode (instead of lucky specs). Leela's old boss was the one who said "Oh my various gods, they're x-ray specs!" That's my favorite episode, especially since the title has the word "Requisitioned" in it.

Given the history of Einstein, Galileo, and Kepler I can’t help but be skeptical. :)

Hes saying that the laws don't change. People used to think that the sun revolved around the earth. They were wrong, but that didn't make the fact that the earth revolves around the sun any less true.

People used to think leeches cured sickness. That didn't make it true, people were just wrong.

We may be wrong about what we think the laws of spacetime are right now, but whatever they are, they don't change.

So everyone, in all this meaning less/ful thread, what is the real answer that everyone agrees on ;)

Eternity does exist that much I know, but does anything other than the Creator exist before time,during time and beyond time?
As someone said the stars have a limited timespan, the universe itself seem to have begun with a Bang and that means there was a time when everything within the universe did not exist.

Is that philosophical enough!? ;)

And Chris,
"We may be wrong about what we think the laws of spacetime are right now, but whatever they are, they don't change."

I agree with the humans assumed as laws may not be correct, but as space and time was non existent long ago then how can we say they don't change?

"Comments on this post by firmbeliever
retsoksirhc agrees: You bring up a good point. I don't know that they existed, if, in fact, there was a devine creation. I can't discredit religions to make my statement."

Hey Chris,

Are you not agreeing with me in that time and space not existing long ago?:)
I thought it was scientific theory that the universe began with the big bang and has been changing since then and that it was non existent before then.

Would like to hear your thoughts.. :)

I think Change and Questions are two absolutes that exist and never change.

I think [F]Change and [F]Questions are two absolutes that exist and never change.

Probably so. But, it all depends on what someone thinks about it. There can be many variables.

Hey Chris,

Are you not agreeing with me in that time and space not existing long ago?:)
I thought it was scientific theory that the universe began with the big bang and has been changing since then and that it was non existent before then.

Would like to hear your thoughts..:)
As I understand it, the universe still existed, but in a very compressed state. I'm still not saying that time didn't exist, I'm just saying that some people don't believe in the big bang theory, and instead believe that God created everything out of nothing. While I maybe not believe so myself, I can't discredit their opinion, so I agree that if they're right, then the laws of spacetime did change when it happened. Not saying that it actually happened, just that it could have.

Chris
I agree the Almighty created the universe out of nothing with a Big bang...
How does that sound?

Chris
I agree the Almighty created the universe out of nothing with a Big bang...
How does that sound?
It sounds like your opinion. I disagree, in that I think there was the same amount of matter before the big bang, but it was concentrated to a small area. Then a large amount of energy caused it to expand explosively.
That's what I choose to believe, though either one might be true.

Hes saying that the laws don't change. People used to think that the sun revolved around the earth. They were wrong, but that didn't make the fact that the earth revolves around the sun any less true.

People used to think leeches cured sickness. That didn't make it true, people were just wrong.

We may be wrong about what we think the laws of spacetime are right now, but whatever they are, they don't change.
We can no more be certain about the extended future than if we based our beliefs from reading the future in the entrails of pigs and the ashes of logs; that said: Just who wrote the Laws? To my knowledge language is part of social reality. What is really being said is that things are what they are, and although true, it is a useless truth.

Chris
I agree the Almighty created the universe out of nothing with a Big bang...
How does that sound?
It sounds absurd.

Okay, from a scientific point of view, the two things that you MIGHT be able to get scientists to agree are eternal are Mass-Energy and Entropy Increase.

But, then again, nobody understands the physics of the first few fractions of a second of the big bang, so maybe these things were determined then and didn't exist before, so they certainly weren't eternal.

That's why I said MIGHT :)

Okay, from a scientific point of view, the two things that you MIGHT be able to get scientists to agree are eternal are Mass-Energy and Entropy Increase.

But, then again, nobody understands the physics of the first few fractions of a second of the big bang, so maybe these things were determined then and didn't exist before, so they certainly weren't eternal.

That's why I said MIGHT :)
I can buy into kinetic energy, but not sure about mass-energy, given the properties may change. As far as Entropy Increase; I think we need a better understanding of Entropy.

However, I can agree with the might!

Mass and energy are equivalent and mass-energy cannot be destroyed (in any scenario that we know of - i.e. it might happen in a black hole or something).

Kinetic energy can be created and destroyed, for example move your hand, you are creating and destroying kinetic energy, it is converting into or from other forms of energy. Energy is normally, for our human range of experiences, never created or destroyed. But einstein tells us that mass can be turned into energy. Thus the total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant, but mass and energy can both change.

Entropy is often described as a measure of randomness. Heat flows from hotter to colder, in the universe as a whole, this is called the increase in entropy. The rate of entropy increase can change but it should never decrease, and so increasing entropy is eternal (maybe it might decrease in a black hole or at the big bang, nobody knows).

Does that make any sense whatsoever? :P

Is entropy causing global warming??

Not really firm. :)

Hello DC:

"What are two absolutes that exist in eternity and never change?"

I'm going to post my two and then go see who (if anyone) said the same thing.

In fact, I can't think of any more than two, or any less. Eternity 1) has no beginning and 2) has no end.

excon

Thanks Capuchin for clarifying I did not think so either but had to ask to be sure :)

Hello DC:

"What are two absolutes that exist in eternity and never change?"

I'm gonna post my two and then go see who (if anyone) said the same thing.

In fact, I can't think of any more than two, or any less. Eternity 1) has no beginning and 2) has no end.

excon
Ola excon

There doesn’t seem to be any proof of beginning or end.

Wait, I've got another smartarse answer for the original question.

I can name more than two!

E, R, and N.

Entropy is often described as a measure of randomness. Heat flows from hotter to colder, in the universe as a whole, this is called the increase in entropy. The rate of entropy increase can change but it should never decrease, and so increasing entropy is eternal (maybe it might decrease in a black hole or at the big bang, nobody knows).

Does that make any sense whatsoever? :P
I would have agreed with you until a few weeks ago. I read on wikipedia (I know, not that reliable of a source, but it makes sense), that entropy is only true on a macroscopic scale. Picture two atoms. The idea of entropy is that eventually, the speed and motion of the atoms will reach an equillibrium. With as little as two atoms, however, it is possible that the atoms could bouce off each other in such a way that the slower moving atom actually gives up some of it's veolicity and the faster one gets faster. Granted, it's likely to happen the other way more often than not. When you add more atoms, you get to take the average of the progression toward equillibrium of all of them. The more atoms, the less stastical chance you have of moving away from equillibrium than toward it. Thus, it only works on a macroscopic scale, still with a teeeeny tiny margin for error, negligible though it may be.

... How would you answer that question crow ?

How would you answer that question crow ?
What question:)

...
The only thing that I find absolute and never-changing is man's spiritual quest, I believe it is eternal.

keenu,
That can't be right since many people care zero for spirituality.

That really nice Swedish vodka is one!

...

Oh no, that's Absolut...

*Gutted*

NK, even though many people appear to not care about spirituality I believe that we are each,all 100% of us, involved in our own spiritual quest. That is the basis of all that is, our spirituality, our spiritual being. All stems from that. If you go back in time what is it that you find consistently from the beginning? A search for the truth, a spiritual quest for what, how and why we are here.

NK, even though many people appear to not care about spirituality I believe that we are each,all 100% of us, involved in our own spiritual quest. Just because YOU are involved in a spiritual quest does not mean all humans are. Of course you say that everyone needs to worship the Great Flying Spagetti Monster (tasty be his sauce) whether they know it or not, and that includes you.

I would have agreed with you until a few weeks ago. I read on wikipedia (I know, not that reliable of a source, but it makes sense), that entropy is only true on a macroscopic scale. Picture two atoms. The idea of entropy is that eventually, the speed and motion of the atoms will reach an equillibrium. With as little as two atoms, however, it is possible that the atoms could bouce off each other in such a way that the slower moving atom actually gives up some of it's veolicity and the faster one gets faster. Granted, it's likely to happen the other way more often than not. When you add more atoms, you get to take the average of the progression toward equillibrium of all of them. The more atoms, the less stastical chance you have of moving away from equillibrium than toward it. Thus, it only works on a macroscopic scale, still with a teeeeny tiny margin for error, negligable though it may be.

I realise that increasing entropy can be broken on a quantum scale, but would you say that the universe is not macroscopic?

I realise that increasing entropy can be broken on a quantum scale, but would you say that the universe is not macroscopic?
I didn't say it wasn't macroscopic, I'm just saying that even though the chance of entropy decreasing in something as massive and macroscopic as the entire universe is so negligible that it's almost not worth mentioning, I'd still like to mention it... it was that word 'almost,' so here we are... heh.

So yeah, I agree. Universe=macroscopic, but decrease in entropy is still possible, though insanely improbable.

No beginning no end.

No beginning. No End.
Am I right? I thought about this all night .
This has to be it.

Just because YOU are involved in a spiritual quest does not mean all humans are. Of course you say that everyone needs to worship the Great Flying Spagetti Monster (tasty be his sauce) whether they know it or not, and that includes you.
There are no gods to worship in my quest! Spirituality has nothing to do with religion. Spirituality is simply recognition that we exist outside of physical reality. That we exist even when we are not here in a physical body.

There are no gods to worship in my quest! Spirituality has nothing to do with religion. Spirituality is simply recognition that we exist outside of physical reality. That we exist even when we are not here in a physical body.
Hi Patty

I believe in Spirituality in the sense that it is a type of belonging; and that spiritualities exists outside of physical reality, but I am hesitant to believe, “ That we exist even when we are not here in a physical body.”

Bill:)

I know one is a human's disire to satisfy his own needs above that of others. Often when people join clubs like save the environment it is to satisfy their need to belong. To what extent we help others is the question. To help others feel to receive a sense of belonging is all right. But it isn't if it is for example if you help others because you feel it is the popular in thing to do. For example to join a club dedicated to cleaning up garbage at a local high school. You join the club because you feel like everyone is doing it and you want to flirt with the opposite sex and spoof around. The issue is not something you never have given very much thought into. This might be compensated by how great the act is. Politicians act in the name of self. But they do will do great things in the name of self people will remember them for. There are however many selfless deeds people take on themselves every day without regard for what they need. There is a fine line between what people really need and really want.

1) Everything is always changing.
2) Concrete is going to crack.