All laws are illegal?

[Robsta]

In order for the Australian constitution to be "legal" it needs to be signed by the Queen. The current constitution has never been signed by the constitution and instead was signed by the governor general. The constitution states that the governor general acts on behalf of the queen so this would seem acceptable that the governor general signed on behalf of the queen but in fact the queen never approved that the governor general could act on behalf of her so the costitution is not approved and therefore void.

So this means the cinstitution is not legal and all laws are illegal.

You mad authorities?

 

[MTGod]

Splice hacked Robsta's account...?

 

[Corpsecreate]

yes indeed

 

[Aussierob123]

Poor splice. That was the ultimate insult MTGod.

Comparing Robsta to him. Mean.

 

[Dekar289]

you're supposed to give way to people getting off the train

 

[Corpsecreate]

Poor splice. That was the ultimate insult MTGod.

Comparing Robsta to him. Mean.

He could have said he was alzi...

 

[MTGod]

It seems I've gone too far this time...

 

[Robsta]

Why do I bother

 

[Invisi]

And thus, by its own clauses, the constitution brought itself into existence. Gotta love those causal loops. (To think some people believe that the universe created itself like this *facepalm*, but that's a topic for another time)

But anyway, the constitution is intrinsicly worthless. It is only meaningful if it is enforced (which it is here, unlike some other unforunate places). The piece of paper and words of the constitution are meaningless. The significance of the constitution (and the law in general) comes from the respect given to it by society, and the use of it in the justice system. Even if it were unsigned there would be no difference provided it was still respected and used in the same ways.

 

[Splice]

i dunno, despite contrast in post length it seems robsta thought about the thread topic or did some research before posting, i just did the train thing to be emo.

Also everybody hates me.
^^ Actually true ^^

So I am leaving the scene.

 

[Corpsecreate]

Leave and join the perth scene again.

 

[Splice]

MTGod has left me with no refuge. There will be no shelter in Perth.

 

[Pete278]

And thus, by its own clauses, the constitution brought itself into existence. Gotta love those causal loops. (To think some people believe that the universe created itself like this *facepalm*, but that's a topic for another time)

But anyway, the constitution is intrinsicly worthless. It is only meaningful if it is enforced (which it is here, unlike some other unforunate places). The piece of paper and words of the constitution are meaningless. The significance of the constitution (and the law in general) comes from the respect given to it by society, and the use of it in the justice system. Even if it were unsigned there would be no difference provided it was still respected and used in the same ways.

Out of interest, why couldn't the universe create itself?

 

[Robsta]

Out of interest, why couldn't the universe create itself?

Because you touch yourself at night

 

[Invisi]

In a nutshell, the universe couldn't create itself unless it already existed. But if it already existed, then it must have been created before it created itself (which is impossible). This argument holds for anything which is finite in the sense of time, ie, things that had a beginning (so mathematics, for example, is exempt). It is possible to prove using physics that the universe had a beginning some 13.7 billion years ago, and therefore must have had some other cause.

This argument concludes that the universe must have some external cause. However, it tells us nothing about the nature of this cause, other than that it must be infinite (if it were finite, the same argument could be used to prove that this in turn had its own cause (and Ockham's Razor would refute an infinite regress (or even the universe's cause being finite))).

I realise we've kinda gone off-topic of this thread (though I'm not sure exactly what the initial point of it was anyway), so maybe it would be better to move this to private messaging (unless other people would prefer to join in (without trolling)).

 

[ciaza]

Oh look the cosmological argument.

I like how you tried to not imply God though =D.

Out of interest, have you heard of the Big Bounce theory?

 

[xXArrowXx]

rules.
universe just appeared.
no rules before universe appeared since there was nothing.
rules.

 

[Invisi]

Out of interest, have you heard of the Big Bounce theory?

I'm guessing that's that oscillating universe model of big bang, universe, big crunch, repeat?

Well that can fall under the same argument, in that it either has a finite starting point, or is an infinite regress (this is impossible to avoid with any model of the universe). The problem then is to show that an infinite regress is illogical.

Apart from Ockham's Razor saying that it is less likely as it is more complicated, it is actually possible to show that such a Big Bounce model must be finite. Now, I'm not an expert of this field, so I merely believe what I am told, but according to the laws of thermodynamics, entropy would be conserved from one universe to the next. This means that each universe is bigger than the last. Performing some calculations from our current state, such a model would be no more than 100 universes old.

Again, I don't really know about thermodynamics, so unfortunately I can't explain or justify why this is the case.

 

[xXArrowXx]

problem entropy is not conserved...
entropy is the "waste heat"

 

[Invisi]

My main problem with replying to that is that I don't exactly know what entropy is, but from what I gather it's a form of energy (and we all know energy is conserved in everything). However, instead of my speculation, how about I just show you the argument as I read it.

Furthermore, wholly apart from the physical and observational difficulties confronting oscillatory models, the thermodynamic properties of such models imply the very beginning of the universe that their proponents sought to avoid. For entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle in such models, which has the effect of generating larger and longer oscillations with each successive cycle. As one scientific team explains, “The effect of entropy production will be to enlarge the cosmic scale, from cycle to cycle. . . . Thus, looking back in time, each cycle generated less entropy, had a smaller cycle time, and had a smaller cycle expansion factor then [sic] the cycle that followed it.” Thus, as one traces the oscillations back in time, they become progressively smaller until one reaches a first and smallest oscillation. Zeldovich and Novikov therefore conclude, “The multicycle model has an infinite future, but only a finite past.” In fact, astronomer Joseph Silk estimates on the basis of current entropy levels that the universe cannot have gone through more than 100 previous oscillations.

As implied by the first sentence, yes there are other ways to refute the Big Bounce Theory.

 

[Invisi]

Okay, so after re-reading that argument, it really doesn't specify how entropy is conserved, other than stating that it is. So I did a little bit more reading.

From Wikipedia:

The concept of entropy is defined phenomenologically by the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated system always increases or remains constant

We therefore have two possible cases (as I can see it):
1. The Big Bounce is a system within itself, such that each universe is part of the same system.
2. Each universe of the Big Bounce theory is a separate system.

1. If each universe is part of the same system, then by the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy of the system cannot decrease, and must be conserved. Thus, each universe is bigger than the last, such that if you extrapolate into the past, the system had a finite beginning, and therefore an external cause. The initial argument holds

2. If each universe is its own system, then the Big Bounce model which is proposed is merely an implementation of the initial argument. The universe has an external cause, and the argument holds. (remember we are not trying to prove anything specific about the nature of this cause). Of course, this model brings its own complication of how each universe can cause the next, if they are isolated systems.

 

[Corpsecreate]

The law of conservation of mass says that something cannot come from nothing, however I exist and so does the universe, therefore the law is wrong.

 

[Invisi]

E = mc^2

Mass can come from pure energy (which is my understanding of the Big Bang theory; that a ball of pure energy spontaniously condensed into matter, causing rapid expansion). This of course raises the question of where all that energy came from; it must have had some cause (even if it always existed, thermodynamics would prevent it from condensing into matter of its own accord as it is already in its purest state; there must have been some external influence).

 

[xXArrowXx]

the thing about entropy is it can be created. but it cant be destroyed...


so if the law of conservation of mass is true.. why is it difficult to believe that the universe was always here.

 

[ciaza]

Shame on you both, ruining Robsta's lucid and insightful thread to rabble on about the cause of the universe which will no doubt segue into a boring God debate.

.

 

[asianaussie]

how did a robsta thread turn into actual scientific discussion

 

[Zero]

This thread is way too serious. We need significantly more teapot pictures.

 

[xXArrowXx]

teapots?

 

[Vyse]

Galactic Teapot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

 

[Splice]

Good job everybody!

Vanquish dat science

 

[Zero]

Half a teapot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_teapot

 

[xXArrowXx]

the wiki lost me at "Literary critic and novelist James Wood,"

 

[ciaza]

FWIW, the main reason why theists contend God is different from Russell's teapot is that they will claim the teapot is contingent while God is necessary.

I feel like they should shove that somewhere in the Counter-Argument segment, rather than ****ing James Woods spouting nonsense.

 

[MTGod]

Modern physics -could- be wrong, y'know..............................................................

 

[Corpsecreate]

Fwiw = ????

 

[Rad]

I love discussions about this ****. My mind goes into that zen-like state that Bart encounters when Lisa asks him about the tree in the forrest when I contemplate there being no Universe.

 

[blaze3927]

the universe exists through my imagination and perception

nubs

 

[ciaza]

Fwiw = ????

For what it's worth.

Sorry for not being clear.

the universe exists through my imagination and perception

nubs

ur dum lol

 

[xXArrowXx]

i am on the 3rd layer pf the dream.
we have to go deeper

 

[luke_atyeo]

my wizardry is not for the understanding of mere mortals