Stormrage's crazy theory of existance

[OneBYOne]

Re: Stormrage's crazy theory of existance

About the mathemathics paradox, I'm not going to continue on that part of the discussion before more information of the general concept of Topologi (that is the name og generel Set Theory I believe)

And from what I think I understood of your writings, then all I can say is that I do not understand why the set has to keep a given property otherwise it is a paradox. For me it's like if I had to collect all <insert item> in the world that have a given property, and I find out when I have all except one, then the only way I can have all in my collection is by removing the property of the last I don't have, and the only way to remove this property is by adding it my collection.

how is that? can you clarify this?

Well given something is random, then you have no control over it, so no matter in what part of the whole free will concept you place a random operation, then you don't control it. Likewise no matter where you place a deterministic operation, then you really don't control this either, because it was known by anyone who could and would find out about it long before you even were born.

what if you can't? would that change anything? for me, i would care, no matter what...

Well I imagine that what uniquely define ourselves are our consciousness, though it is in combination with our memory, yet a way of explaining this uniquely defining of life is that given two bodies have the same consciousness, then these should in fact be the same person and therefore be consciousness of every action one decides, it should therefore be like that what body A can see, and what body B can see, all this is the consciousness aware of at the same time. That is though there may be no apparent physical connections (yet there of course is), and should not be limited by distance, since that would make a difference such a way that it can't be the same consciousness, and thereby it can't be the same person. Therefore I imagine it like given there is no free will, then we are very conscious about our actions, but we do not control them, this we're also consciouness about given the actions we make are not those we won't, unless we actually do what we want to do, so we think we're free to do what we want, thereby being controlled to do what we actually want.

For me, it's the result that matter, given I want to do action A at time B, but I do not control it, yet whatever controls it makes so that I really do action A at time B, and since both A and B are general, one can take A and B to every time, whereby there's no difference really.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: Stormrage's crazy theory of existance

And from what I think I understood of your writings, then all I can say is that I do not understand why the set has to keep a given property otherwise it is a paradox. For me it's like if I had to collect all <insert item> in the world that have a given property, and I find out when I have all except one, then the only way I can have all in my collection is by removing the property of the last I don't have, and the only way to remove this property is by adding it my collection.

ok, first: one does not collect things into a set. one sets the properties that a set is supposed to have and then it automatically has all of the relevant entities in it..., now you analyse which entities are in it
it's not a empty can-needs-to-be-filled, but always a filled-can-needs-to-be-looke- at thing...
also, removing properties is really not what we're doing here: if you remove property A from set B and then stick that changed set into set B, then set B will no longer be set B, but instead turn into set C (because its properties are changed), so you still haven't put set B into the set, instead, you did it with set C, which is really not the point (it's a paradox, mathematicians have always accepted that, that's why they made new axioms to avoid bumping into it...)

Well given something is random, then you have no control over it, so no matter in what part of the whole free will concept you place a random operation, then you don't control it. Likewise no matter where you place a deterministic operation, then you really don't control this either, because it was known by anyone who could and would find out about it long before you even were born.

so... we can't have any control no matter what? i think it's, as said, only that deterministic/random part that you then absolutely cannot control, but there are other things you can control: for example: the free will is created by something random, but controlled by your soul

we are very conscious about our actions, but we do not control them, this we're also consciouness about given the actions we make are not those we won't, unless we actually do what we want to do, so we think we're free to do what we want, thereby being controlled to do what we actually want.

at this stage of your theory i see two further possibilities: this something that controls will either be influenced by what you want and therefore make it happen for you, or you will be completely controlled by that something in what you want, so that something can do anything and you have no choice but to want that "anything" (note: i'm not judging your theory yet, i'm just stating observation)

For me, it's the result that matter, given I want to do action A at time B, but I do not control it, yet whatever controls it makes so that I really do action A at time B, and since both A and B are general, one can take A and B to every time, whereby there's no difference really.

in this instance you seemingly took the route where that something will be influenced by what you want and make it happen for you. this leads to --> you actually control that something to do what you want it to do in this case, so your consciousness is still somewhat in control, giving the element of free will to your actions...

now for my point of view: this theory has the same old situation: if you believe in the "what you want influences that something" route then you have free will added to your actions, if you believe in the "that something completely controls you in what you want" route, then all your actions are unfree and determined by that something
(now, we still don't know if that something is random or deterministically already planned out)

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: Stormrage's crazy theory of existance

WARNING: to anyone who is thinking about reading this post

it is VERY HEAVY in terms of science concepts. read at your own discretion!

if this makes u feel "stupid" and/or is "way over your head", don't worry. this is really advanced stuff and not suppose to be easily understood, otherwise there be tons of theoretical physicists in our human population.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you two (onebyone and iamebadger) don't mind, i'd love to jump in with u two (onebyone and iamebadger).

i know quite a lot about physics, though not the mathematical specifics. more of a "theoretical" (concept) person.

well, i hadn't read every line of every post of every thread of u two, got tired after a bit.

but, i'll try to respond (with my bad memory) of some of the things u been discussing that i can remember.

at any time if u want me to back up anything i say, i can. though for convenience i leave out the support unless neccessary.

everything i say IS based off of real findings of actualy scientists, mathematicians, and theoretical physicists who are much much much much smarter and knowledgible than i or any of us are (unless we got them here...probably doubtful...).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hmm....first off, never disregard the human mind. science would NOT exist if it were not for the human mind. yes, gravity still exists even though a dog (some non-human non-"intelligent" organism) doesn't know what gravity is. however, the concept GRAVITY does NOT exist. the force-effect does...but a dog doesn't know that this "falling down" is a force called gravity. science is the concepts of the real world. science requires the human brain-mind. gravity as a real thing (force) still exists in the "animal world", but gravity as science and the science itself does NOT exist in the "animal world".

don't be so fast to disregard "speculution". in fact, to get technical, all the science, everything we think we know, is simply our "best guess" and is already verifiably wrong, incorrect, and false. here's how: everything we know, all the physics, ends in a black hole's singularity or between universi or multiversi. we don't understand the micro level physics very well. the "physics" at the micro level is for the most part unknown to us. we actually under stand macro physics better than micro physics, yet as i mentioned even in macro physics there exists "spots" that are outside the at least "known realm" of physics. about the micro level physics, yes we have quantum mechanics, but we hardly know how this micro level works. we have some discoveries with the big bang, inflation, the super force, the 4 smaller parts of the super force that broke apart and gave us the universe made up of those 4 smaller forces (strong force, weak force, E-M force, and gravity force). know know pretty well about these 4 forces and all the subatomic particles (both the stable ones and the ones that only exist for nanoseconds when smashed into creation in the super coliders). we know about gravity force on the macro level. of how gravity causes black holes and all that comes with black holes. of how gravity can warp or mold or alter space-time (light and matter). we even discovered/made/make micro black holes in super colliders. but don't understand them at all as far as i know. we know all about the strong force (nuclear energy), weak force (radiation=radio active decay), E-M force (it's ability to contain energy, electricity and currents, magnetism and compasses and magnets and poles/polarity and etc..). but there's still many many things we don't know. like what effect gravity has at the micro level. besides making existance impossible, what effects would the strong, weak, E-M have at the scale that gravity can reach (gravity is actually a VERY WEAK-PUNY force. however, it is able to scale enormously macro, universe and black holes. if the strong, weak, E-M forces could reach that level of scale that gravity can reach, it would undo existance at least as we know it).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as to universe and multiverse:

with the newest theories, existance has entered into the same problem as particles have. molecule->atom->particles->quarks-> ? -> ? ...never ends.... its the same problem with existance now too (see directly below). this problem is known as fractalization (fractals).

the newest theories and thus explanation of universe and multiverse as i know them:

the universe:

existance as we know it. (anything and everything in "outer space" which of course includes the earth and humans).

multiverse:

a bunch of universi connected together by different dimensions caused by extreme warping of space. think of a multiverse as being a skyscraper building and universi as being the stories-floors in that skyscraper building. the elevator-stairs connecting the stories-floors would be the extreme warping of space-time. the "space" between these stories-floor, we have NO idea what it is. it is beyond our existance-universe. so, the only way to name this "space" is "hyper space".

now we have the theory that there's actually a bunch of multiversi. it is theorized that these multiversi are like bubbles. each bubble is a multiverse. the "space" that these multiverse bubbles are "floating around in" i guess would be "hyper hyper-space".

so what is a wormhole in this context. a worm hole is merely a person "jumping-teleporting" from one spot in the story-floor of the skyscrapper to another spot of the SAME story-floor of the SAME skyscrapper.

so to get to another universe, u have to have extreme warping of space-time (way beyond a wormhole, like a black hole).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
steven hawking (the guy on the wheel chair) came to the discovery-realization that the universe (including our "world" or universe) is a GIANT black hole. this explains the finite-ness of the infinite space ("outer space") that we call the/our universe (our universe is expanding as seen with the "red shift" or the radiation spectrum that stars give off at different distances in relation to each other. also, not only is out universe expanding, but it's expansion is quickening or getting faster. the theory for this is dark energy. this dark energy is like an anti-gravity. where gravity pulls stuff together, dark energy is shoving things apart. and our universe's expansion is quickening, this dark energy is winning against gravity). despite our universe's continuing expansion, at any given time it is always finite. "something" is "blocking" "us" from going beyond out universe. if steven hawking is right and universi are merely giant black holes, than this "something" that is "blocking" "us" would be the black hole's event horizon.

a quick mention of black holes is needed before i discuss further:

a black hole is like a vacuum cleaner. it sucks everything in. well that "stuff" that it sucks in is our existance-universe. this stuff is light. light is the information and "stuff" of creation. existance-creation needs energy. light is that energy. the fancy word they use for light is data. so it would seem that black holes would be the "anti-creator". eventually the entire universe will be sucked into black holes, trapped forever and existance vanishes forever. the black hole consumes-"eats up" all the data until there is no universe, no existance left. steven hawking believed in this. the current findings/theories have disproven steven hawking's theory of "doomed existance". see these findings/theories "of hope for existance-universe 's continuance and the existance of the already existing universe-existance itself" below:

and now, But:

fortunately, existance and universi (including our universe-existance), will not be "devoured" by black holes. there are new theories of "hope" instead of the above "doom" theory. obviously, once u cross the black hole's event horizon (event horizon is a fancy word for, for example, the touchdown plane in football. once u cross that plane in football, it's a touchdown. same thing with a black hole's event horizon. once u cross the event horizon, "you ain't coming back".) you are forever lost from the existance-universe-world that we know, and to us you are instantly "torn to spreads" (de-constructed....atoms come apart..everything breaks down). however, the "data" is also preserved eternally by the black hole. it's not destroyed, it's preserved forever. do to the nature of a black hole it takes infinity or near infinity to reach the center of the black hole, the actual singularity. this is the best we understand what we can't understand. so the theory is that black holes don't destroy the "world" but rather they preserve it forever.

if this doesn't make sense, don't worry about it. it's very extreme theories that have absolutely no value at all to humans or the lives of humans. it's jsut for nerds like me and all the super smart people to get a thrill out of
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as to light and otehr "Stuff" and speed:

as far as i know, light IS the maximum speed limit. NOTHING is as fast as light, except light itself (duh!). NOTHING is faster than light in the (our) real/known realm of physics. there are probably some things that are very close to the speed of light, but still are slower than light. "u" can, however, cheat past light (using warped space-time) in a "race". BUT, "u" can NOT or NEVER "out-run" light in a "race".

the only "possible" exception could be are the "beams" coming out of blackholes (if i remember right, only radio waves can escape a black hole, well, not really escape, it's more like shot back out of a black hole as "beams", as i alraedy mentioned) or quasars (no idea what type(s) of energy-radiation these are, except anything hit by these "beams" are destroyed. obviously, the earth or our sun-star or galaxy hasn't been hit by a quasar "beam"). but, i have never heard-read anyone say what the speed is of these "beams" from black holes and/or quasars, so i don't know if they faster than light or not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
as to science and forces VS faith and "god" debate, it dies below:

i've already posted about this in other threads, but i'll post again in this thread too, and also go into better detail and support for it

the "final destination" or "end game" of science is the proving (scientific proving) of "god's" existance.

science is already strongly supporting the existance of "god".

here's THEE proof for this:

the universe is "constructed" so that it is entirely "built" by physics (mathematics). and than that universe "gave rise" to life (from particles to atoms to molecules to inorganic compounds to organic compounds to DNA to life) in a single spot in the universe (earth). than that life, had "perfect evolvement" into a lifeform (humans) that is "able to understand, comprehend, unlock, and harness the secret's of the/that physics (mathematics) constructed universe for their/our OWN LIKING". also, ONLY on earth is there life, so that we humans have no threat from other life forms from other places ("how convenient..."). why is the universe and it's science "constructed" DIRECTLY for humans and humans' use? why were humans "constructed" as they are and why were/are humans "constructed" DIRECTLY for understanding, comprehending, unlocking, and harnessing the universe? this is all too perfect/convenient to be coincidence. this directly supports an omnisficient and omnipotent absolute entity, or "god".

just as electricity and magnetism were discovered to actually be the same thing and not two separate things. the discovery of the E-M force. there's no such thing as electricity and magnetism, but there is the E-M force.

just as matter and energy were discovered to actually be the same thing and not two separate things. einstein's E=mc^2 and the resultant nuclear bomb/energy. there's no such thing as matter and energy, but there is the "E=mc^2" equation for non-life and for life there's the "E=m^3/4" equation.

just as space and time were discovered to actually be the same thing and not two separate things. einstein's "relativity theory" and the resultant discovery of space-time. there's no such thing as space and time, but there is space-time.

and finally,

according to me, science-forces and faith-god are actually the same thing and not two separate things. faith-god created science-forces-man and science-forces-man proves the existance of faith-god. there's no such thing as science-forces and faith-god, but there is (call it whatever u want. "science of god-faith" or "faith of science-forces").
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the two of u made more comments, but i forgot them, and i'm tired. i need a break.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: Stormrage's crazy theory of existance

wow, those are a lot of theories! they are understandable and often logical, but never bullet-proof (NEVER!, try constructing something that is bullet-proof!)...

ok, that was my little outburst, now I'll go back to accepting that there is a possibility of some things being "bullet-proof", (only a possibility)

anyways, good to have you in the discussion, I'll try to comment on some things, but I don't have the scientific info that you have (you're likely already in college or finished?)

________________________________________________________________

dog doesn't know that this "falling down" is a force called gravity

this is what we humans in our cockiness like to say a lot..., i like to think of humans as a biological life form just like all other animals, except that our neural complexity reaches a certain "breakpoint" (sound familiar?, haha) beyond which the learning/observation/connection-making potential of this life form reaches a critical level (the level we have today...)
sometimes i like to think just the other way around, though (I'm in a more scientific mood today)

don't be so fast to disregard "speculution"

right from my heart, i really agree here.
and i also know a little about balancing out speculation with fact (no-brainer)
the best we can do is hope we aren't off by too much, when we draw conclusions out of our observations

as to universe and multiverse:

well, OneByOne proposed (wanted) to call the whole collection (if it exists as such) of universi a "universe", as in "all that exists and ever will exist"
to that i said: i don't want that! i want to use the word multiverse, and i want to call parts of that multiverse universe, just because i feel language flexibility is a good thing
(hope i made our problem clearer now, was kinda hard to follow)

steven hawking

i thought it was steven king (book author) and stephen hawking (physicist), not the other way around...

science and forces VS faith and "god" debate, it dies below

(don't be offended by the following words, i appreciate you bringing fresh "stuff" to our discussion)
i'm not aware that we ever started such a debate (in fact, OneByOne has stated, that he is not fond of such debates and will not comment on it, should it be started, calling these debates "to believe or not believe never-coming-to-something-productive kinda debates" or something similar)
although we might have started something similar... also, if it's been started here, i doubt it would die so quickly (i highly contest that!)

the "final destination" or "end game" of science is the proving (scientific proving) of "god's" existance

you might call it that, but it's not very accurate..., this is a might-be... personally i think after proving god's existence science would unlikely be satisfied. it would just move on to prove some other stuff it hasn't proven yet, thereby making god not the "end game"

science is already strongly supporting the existance of "god"

strongly supporting it? maybe, but not STEELCLAD-UN-break-beatable-irrefutably-inescapable supporting it (which is what it seems like in your post),... i bet

the universe is "constructed" so that it is entirely "built" by physics (mathematics)

o yeah?, i bet the universe might even consist of very "unphysical" things like "soul", (god-forbid) "love", "imagination", "god/s", "mythical dragons", or other metaphysical things... (again, i can't prove it, but romanticism has shown time and again how this point of view is possible)

in a single spot in the universe (earth)

ONLY on earth is there life, so that we humans have no threat from other life forms from other places ("how convenient...")

that could just be human cockiness speaking... the opposite hasn't been disproven yet, we haven't even made out it's possibility to be negligibly small (!) (as said, speculation, speculation...)
also, to be a nitpick, technically there is already life we know about outside of the earth, although still in its orbit (space station)

than that life, had "perfect evolvement" into a lifeform (humans) that is "able to understand, comprehend, unlock, and harness the secret's of the/that physics (mathematics) constructed universe for their/our OWN LIKING"

this "evolvement" could have gone a lot smoother and even today, we aren't what i'd call perfect just yet...
also, the scale of this harnessing can be HUGE or laughable depending on the point of view you look at it from (imagine the sun was able to know about and judge our doings, imagine yourself as that sun, lmao-ing...)

why is the universe and it's science "constructed" DIRECTLY for humans and humans' use?

you mean "the outer crust of the earth", or, to be more generous "parts of our solar system", when you said "universe", right?, because that is all we've been efficiently using up till now and i don't see us going further than that any time "soon"

this is all too perfect/convenient to be coincidence

says the hobby detective while sherlock holmes shakes his head (hahaha, lighten up :wave

were discovered to actually be

you say "were discovered", but i say "we're best-guessed", and i'm quoting from a very knowledgeable guy named HegemonKhan, so bow to that AUTHORITAY

according to me, science-forces and faith-god are actually the same thing and not two separate things. faith-god created science-forces-man and science-forces-man proves the existance of faith-god. there's no such thing as science-forces and faith-god, but there is (call it whatever u want. "science of god-faith" or "faith of science-forces").

now THAT would be the end-game find for science, methinks... but until then, this is a bit farfetch'd
want me to elaborate on that? well then you're going to have to ask for that, cuz i'm too tired now (to even write 'because' instead of 'cuz'...)

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: Stormrage's crazy theory of existance

err, a response to a response to my long response...is gonna get exponentially long...
it's not gonna be practical to keep responding to each of the topics/comments...

so i'll jsut throw in a small humurous response:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by HegemonKhan
steven hawking

i thought it was steven king (book author) and stephen hawking (physicist), not the other way around... -iamebadger
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i wish i could honestly say that was a typo, but i'd be lying. i never really payed attention to his first name....and jsut assumed is was steven....sad that i got his last name right and didn't confuse it with the famous horror book auther's last name of King, but i got his first name wrong, which happens to be that same famous horror book auther's first name
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S.

the science vs faith thing, *I* added, was NOT from u guys! in another thread, it (well actually i brought it up in my responding post) came up and i just decided to also include it into my "jumping in" post to you guys' discussion posts. as it IS relevant that when ever u talk about a human's belief in science u must also talk about a human's belief in faith. science is as much a "leap of faith-belief" as is faith a "leap of faith-belief". (leap of faith isn't a good phrase to use...since it has faith in it....but oh well....I like the phrase and it's well known, anyways, even if it causes confusion)

a "person of science" should never be afraid to talk about the thing (science) that he believes in. Nor, should a "person of faith" ever be afraid to talk about the thing (faith) that he believes in. Or, even, politics and political views for that matter. anyone who does not does so...is a coward and afraid. BELIEVE in what u beleive in! don't be afraid, speak!, your belief and why u beleive in it!

it's human to believe, whether it's:

science, faith, democratic, republican, liberal, or conservative.

it is belief, YOUR belief. be proud of it! and let others know u are proud of it and beleive in it!

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: Stormrage's crazy theory of existance

respond as you please, but i do wish you read the whole thing, (i mean, you got me to read and analyse your monster of a post, right?)

also, i do not believe in always having to take a definite and irrevocably binding stance in this matter. i belive that one needs to keep one's mind open to a lot of possibilities and then lean towards the one that you think is best (best not as in most comfortable, but you know that)

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Stormrage's crazy theory of existance

Man, this whole post is one big "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah".

Let's be honest here - other than the participants, does anyone else actually read long posts?

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: Stormrage's crazy theory of existance

haha, come on, let it be... it's not all that non-sensical of a bla-bla thing, it just seems so because it's so long and complex...

bout your question: i have NO idea, but kudos to anyone who read at least two of those monster posts and understood half...

 

[Galabab]

Re: Stormrage's crazy theory of existance

Theory that this is based on:
Now let's assume that the big bang happened. Let's assume that the dust that caused the big explosion was the dust from the last existing universe, which also began this way, etc to infinity. We will call this existance the wheel.

Sorry to disappoint you but the thing you based the whole thing on is simply wrong.

The circle of big bangs is impossible.
Why? Becouse two major aspects:

1.The matter drifting apart moves faster than the gravity force works in opposite direction. So basicly every second the gravity force betwean all matter becomes lesser than the realtive amount of "breaking" coused by gravity.
Its similar to that famous question. Imagine you have to go through a coridor of 10 meters. But with every step you become 1/2 of your size (disregarding that you would have to climb up atoms or such). WIll you EVER be able to go through that corridor?
You will be smaller and smaller reaaaally tiny but you will keep going. So will you EVER after half the eternity finish?
The answer is no. Becouse with each step the number of steps yet needed inceases. Same goes for matter drifting apart faster than gravity force works.

2. Observation of astronomic researchers tell us that the speed of the universe expending actually GROWS! There is no explanation for this yet.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: Stormrage's crazy theory of existance

respond as you please, but i do wish you read the whole thing, (i mean, you got me to read and analyse your monster of a post, right?)

also, i do not believe in always having to take a definite and irrevocably binding stance in this matter. i belive that one needs to keep one's mind open to a lot of possibilities and then lean towards the one that you think is best (best not as in most comfortable, but you know that)

I did read all of it
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"2. Observation of astronomic researchers tell us that the speed of the universe expending actually GROWS! There is no explanation for this yet." -galabab

dark energy

 

[Galabab]

Re: Stormrage's crazy theory of existance

AFAIK Dark Energy is far from being proven but yes your right as for the fact that they do try to explain it.
Doesnt change the validity of the second aspect though.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: Stormrage's crazy theory of existance

well, i guess you could say that a big bang chain is impossible because fo 1., but assuming dark energy exists (we're operating in the world of speculation now, and that's what many theoretical physicists do...) we then would not fully understand its mechanics, ... would 1. also apply, in some weird way, to dark energy? and would this affectation actually grow to be stronger than the one on gravity, so that given enough time, gravity would then finally win over?
nobody knows, it's all theory...

-scientists are always trying to explain things through other things they have not even considered to be possibilities yet... they then try to prove those hypotheses, if they fail, try again, if they succeed, make up new hypotheses to explain things and then prove 'em... this is how it works, and if you want to work with science, you have to accept all those hypotheses... just tolerate them, i don't see the problem with that

-so saying something is impossible, because of scientifically "proven" facts: bla and bla..., is ok, but then you also need to accept others who say that it is not impossible given scientifically not-proven-yet hypotheses bla and bla...

EDIT: OneByOne apparently will no longer participate in this debate as OneByOne (he might with a different account name, but I'm not sure, just thought i'd let Hegemonkahn know...)

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: Stormrage's crazy theory of existance

each black hole (there's many many black holes in the universe) "could" produce a big bang and create it's own new universe within it's event horizon. just as it is theorized that our universe is simply a black hole itself, and it's event horizon is the "wall-barrier" between the edge of our universe and ...whatever is past our universe...err..black hole..



think of black holes as seeds from a dying tree (our expanding universe which will expand so much that the energy gets so dispersed and diluted our universe dies in "ice" or cold due to lack of enough consentrated energy) that will sprout and grow into new universes. the dark energy could be the "wind" that blows the "seeds" (black holes) out away so they have plenty of room to sprout and grow.



that's actually a pretty good analogy, if i may compliment myself

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: Stormrage's crazy theory of existance

wow, that go's against any reasoning i've heard of so far, growing and sprouting within, wtf... (do you mean the universe actually procreates?)

also, thou shalt not compliment yourself, i believe that is one of the commandments of ... ech, forget it