How does God orchestrate such a perfect Symphony?

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
Ok so a good friend of mine just passed. He shot himself in his truck while they were mudding. There's this one guy who used to pick on him that is apparently broken up with it and was with him; I'm thinking he said something to him that finally sent him over the edge. But the point is that just today I have noticed at least a hundred synchronicities that obviously point to a higher knowledge and purposeful arrangement.

So this is the question, or questions; does everything happen for a reason? And by reason I don't mean causality I mean a higher purpose, like everything that happens now is for a future purpose, it's like a perfect sequence the universe and the way it unfolds. And if everything does happen for a reason how in the flying fuck does the universe orchestrate it all, now that is infinite intelligence.

@tyler.durden @DaSprout @HeatlessBBQ @VegasWinner @skuba @mikek420 very interested in your opinions for or against me. @Heisenberg
Things happen for reasons.... just not supernatural ones.

When I drop a ball, it hits the floor because of gravity. That's the reason.

The instant you go past what we can explain through experimentation, you are no longer speaking from the demonstrable. If it's not demonstrable, there's no reason to call it factual in any sense.
 

New Age United

Well-Known Member
Things happen for reasons.... just not supernatural ones.

When I drop a ball, it hits the floor because of gravity. That's the reason.

The instant you go past what we can explain through experimentation, you are no longer speaking from the demonstrable. If it's not demonstrable, there's no reason to call it factual in any sense.
Yes I've come to realize that we are really just living in a world of infinite coincidences.
 

thepenofareadywriter

Well-Known Member
Things happen for reasons.... just not supernatural ones.

When I drop a ball, it hits the floor because of gravity. That's the reason.

The instant you go past what we can explain through experimentation, you are no longer speaking from the demonstrable. If it's not demonstrable, there's no reason to call it factual in any sense.
when the ball hits the floor the reason is gravity...whats the reason for the ball bouncing up?
 

abalonehx

Well-Known Member
The ball bouncing up can be explained by science. The natural world is chaos in human terms. There isn't reason or purpose behind everything that occurs.
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
When the ball is lifted into the air it gains potential energy. Gravity hungers for this energy and reaches out with the force of greed to suck the energy towards it. When the ball hits the floor gravity is disrupted because gravity existed before man made objects. This disruption causes gravity to reset, which takes a few moments. During this time the ball can actually float upwards, because it's not under gravity's influence.
 

New Age United

Well-Known Member
When the ball is lifted into the air it gains potential energy. Gravity hungers for this energy and reaches out with the force of greed to suck the energy towards it. When the ball hits the floor gravity is disrupted because gravity existed before man made objects. This disruption causes gravity to reset, which takes a few moments. During this time the ball can actually float upwards, because it's not under gravity's influence.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the ball has kinetic energy gained by the momentum of the downward fall and that is the energy that causes the ball to push aga8nst the field of gravity? Is there ever actually a moment when gravity is not acting on the ball? If there is can you please explain a bit more about this "resetting of gravity?

Edit: For instance if you were to bounce the ball of a wall or ceiling it would still deflect on its own force right?
 

thepenofareadywriter

Well-Known Member
The Future Simulation Postulation™ is a tempting hypothesis because it really only requires one assumption, and once you make that assumption the likelihood that we are in a simulation becomes near certain. However, that one assumption is huge. Occam's razor is not just about counting the number of assumptions, but the size as well. For us to be in a simulation we have to assume that one day humans will discover a source of computing power that will allow us to simulate reality to the degree that we experience it. Further, the computing power would need to be such that each simulation is capable of itself running its own simulations. That's a fantastic amount of processing. However, if this indeed were the case, we could have potentially millions of simulations each running their own millions of simulations, in which case the odds that we ourselves are in one of those simulations is quite likely.

It's easy to waive our hands and say, oh well, it's the future after all, and computing power continues to grow by leaps and bounds, and quantum computing is on the way, and bla bla. Maybe that's all true, but that still doesn't justify the assumption. We could wipe ourselves out before we ever get to that point, or it may be that the computing power necessary would be more than the universe could ever supply. So although I think it is an extremely interesting situation to think about, to me it's still doesn't offer any more merit than "god did it."

Even more so, if we were in a simulation and could know it, I don't see how it would really help other than satisfying curiosity. Life as we know it wouldn't really change. It wouldn't offer any sort of path to transcendence, or give us any sort of advantage over the simulation. I suppose it might convert a few theist into atheists, but I think most people would just keep believing as they please.
So if we [are] or were in a simulation and could know it, would there even be a curiosity to satisfy. Or would that have to be inserted in the simulation?
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the ball has kinetic energy gained by the momentum of the downward fall and that is the energy that causes the ball to push aga8nst the field of gravity? Is there ever actually a moment when gravity is not acting on the ball? If there is can you please explain a bit more about this "resetting of gravity?

Edit: For instance if you were to bounce the ball of a wall or ceiling it would still deflect on its own force right?
No, everything I wrote past the first line was gibberish. I was trying to be silly.

Despite my namesake, physics is not in my wheelhouse. It's been a few years since college, but I believe, if we are talking about a rubber ball, the primary reason it bounces is because of the elasticity. Hitting the floor causes the shape of the ball to distort, and as it begins to snap back into shape it pushes against the floor with enough force to overcome gravity. However, some of the energy was absorbed by the floor, as well as lost to the sound it makes and, of course, heat, so each time the ball bounces it loses height. The less elastic the ball, the less it will bounce, and the heavier it is the more force it takes to lift it back up. I remember enough of physics to know this is a superficial description, but I think that's the gist of it.
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
So if we [are] or were in a simulation and could know it, would there even be a curiosity to satisfy. Or would that have to be inserted in the simulation?
Everything in the simulation would have to have been inserted or emerge from what has been inserted. The idea basically suffers the same flaws as solipsism because it is unfalsifiable. We can't ask ourselves what reality would look like if it weren't being simulated, because if we are in a simulation, then our imagination would be confined to its scope.
 

New Age United

Well-Known Member
No, everything I wrote past the first line was gibberish. I was trying to be silly.

Despite my namesake, physics is not in my wheelhouse. It's been a few years since college, but I believe, if we are talking about a rubber ball, the primary reason it bounces is because of the elasticity. Hitting the floor causes the shape of the ball to distort, and as it begins to snap back into shape it pushes against the floor with enough force to overcome gravity. However, some of the energy was absorbed by the floor, as well as lost to the sound it makes and, of course, heat, so each time the ball bounces it loses height. The less elastic the ball, the less it will bounce, and the heavier it is the more force it takes to lift it back up. I remember enough of physics to know this is a superficial description, but I think that's the gist of it.
Lmfao I didn't think you were making much sense which is extremely unusual for you heis I thought you were drunk or something Lol!!!
 

New Age United

Well-Known Member
No, everything I wrote past the first line was gibberish. I was trying to be silly.

Despite my namesake, physics is not in my wheelhouse. It's been a few years since college, but I believe, if we are talking about a rubber ball, the primary reason it bounces is because of the elasticity. Hitting the floor causes the shape of the ball to distort, and as it begins to snap back into shape it pushes against the floor with enough force to overcome gravity. However, some of the energy was absorbed by the floor, as well as lost to the sound it makes and, of course, heat, so each time the ball bounces it loses height. The less elastic the ball, the less it will bounce, and the heavier it is the more force it takes to lift it back up. I remember enough of physics to know this is a superficial description, but I think that's the gist of it.
Heis, what about a rock, if I throw a rock down at rock it will deflect off, despite the two not being elastic at all. Surely kinetic energy must be a factor.
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Heis, what about a rock, if I throw a rock down at rock it will deflect off, despite the two not being elastic at all. Surely kinetic energy must be a factor.
Yes, potential energy is stored in the ball as it's lifted, and when dropped it's converted to kinetic energy. A rock is solid, meaning it doesn't deform, so no, or very little, energy gets dissipated by deforming it. Instead, the energy may go into the surface/floor and leave a dent. This is opposed to an object which deforms yet has no elasticity, like a hacky sack.

If the surface is also solid, then most of the energy remains in the ball, Newton's third law kicks in, and the ball bounces upwards.

Again I'm sure it's more complicated than this. My understanding of physics is remedial at this point.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Heis, what about a rock, if I throw a rock down at rock it will deflect off, despite the two not being elastic at all. Surely kinetic energy must be a factor.
pretty much all matter is elastic to an extent.

maybe when you get to neutron star's then elasticity goes but everything up till then will be elastic
 
Top