Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by quantum_wave, Aug 4, 2016.
Of course, but you know, it becomes so effortless.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Lol, The effort really beings after the Triangle of Cosmological Explanations, i.e. with dealing with the observables like the raw redshift data and the cosmic microwave background.
You see, you have to answer for t = 0-. Either your hypo should eliminate t = 0- like BB does or should make it redundant. In always existed, you cannot answer this.
Not necessarily. If you select 'always existed', and then go from there, the fist step is to look at what physical evidence there is. That evidence includes the redshift, and the CMBR, which are two good clues pointing to a t=0 in our Big Bang arena. But the 'always existed' means there can still be a "before" the t=0 of our Big Bang, and preconditions to our Big Bang from the greater universe, philosophically.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Original? Are you sure?
No its not original at all. Firstly while a photon's rest frame makes no sense, infinite time dilation and length contraction hypothetically would occur in any FoR of a photon, meaning that a photon has actually no time nor no distance to travel in that frame. In essence in its own hypothetical frame, it would traverse the whole universe in an instant.
I did tell you that before and also gave you a link.
While as yet we have no evidence for inflation, it does solve some problems and is held in high regard by the professionals.
Also t=0 is outside the parameters of the BB, just as it is of GR.
In other words the BB is not a theory of how the universe began.....It is a theory of how space and time [henceforth known as spacetime] evolved and expanded from 10-43 seconds after that initial event.
Infinity and all it entails is at least for me, hard to wrap my mind around.
But agreed, that in itself, does not make that impossible. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Interesting you should bring that up. Infinity is a philosophical topic also.
In my view, when developing your personal view of cosmology a step beyond just choosing a position on the 'beginning', there is another small set of possible characteristics of the universe to consider; I call them the Three Infinities; time, space, and energy.
After you make your choice from the Triangle, you have already taken a position for or against the infinity of 'time' choice. 'Always existed' invokes the infinity of time backward (no beginning), while 'something from nothing' invokes finite time (a beginning).
I certainly understand how people can have a problem wrapping their mind around the concept of infinity. I played mind games with myself for a long time before I got to the point that I can say I grasp it to the extent that I can invoke the Three Infinities. I suggest an exercise for those who have trouble with it.
The exercise is a thought experiment that starts with you being comfortable with a finite universe that extends beyond our ability to observe, i.e., you really don't know the actual finite extent.
1) Your task is to attempt to equate the entire universe with a single grain of sand (you already might know where I'm going with this but don't assume yet). What you have then, is something the size of a grain of sand to wrap your mind around. It represents a volume of space bigger than the observable universe, i.e., two finite pieces, the piece that equals the full extent of our ability to observe (maybe 40 billion light years across), and a piece that we cannot quantify that represents the portion of the universe beyond that observable piece.
2) I know you can picture a beach, say a finite beach around a south sea island. Now equate each grain of sand on that beach with the "universe in a grain of sand" from the thought experiment. You can't expect to count the number of grains of sand on the beach, but you must attempt to mentally imagine the great volume of all of those grains, individually compounded so each equals the volume of our universe. You must also imagine the unknown volume of each grain compounding into an additional volume of space.
3) Now do it again, but this time attempt to equate the volume of space related to the entire beach, to a new single grain of sand, and apply that to a new, greater beach. That new grain now represents such a huge volume of space that the volume associated with the greater beach is mind boggling. Remember that you still have a finite volume, but the unquantified portion is also compounded each time by the number of grains on the beach.
4) Keep doing this compounding, again and again, and each time, stretch your imaginary volume of space in your mind. You will begin to grasp the fact that the finite number of gains of sand involved is getting out of hand, and the compounded volume of the unquantifiable piece of each grain of sand is getting too large to keep track of.
Keep going until you begin to grasp that you are about to be dealing with a potential infinity.
5) Now imagine that you are able to compound the size of the universe residing in your mind, again and again via the thought experiment every moment or so. By now you have grown the volume of the sand grain universe almost beyond imagination, but not quite.
If you were to set out from within the observable universe at the speed of light, as you keep growing the volume again and again in each short period of thought, you know that you could never reach its finite boundary no matter how much time you have. Call the time it would take to get to the supposed finite edge a potentially infinite amount of time. Call the volume a potentially infinite volume.
Maybe that won't help, but if not ...
6) Consider that you may have a mind block when it comes to grasping infinity Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
At the speed of light, the fabric of space-time separates into separate threads of space and separate threads of time. One can follow a time thread without the interconnected limitation of space, or follow a space thread without the interconnected limitation of time. Time without the limitation of space allows one to be anywhere in the universe in zero time. This is traditionally called omnipresence. Space without the limitation of time, would allow one to know about the history of any point in space. This is traditionally called omniscience. Below is a picture of separated time threads.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
These states can be inferred from special relativity. When V=C, universal space-time appears contracted to a point-instant, allowing one to occupy the entire point universe, simultaneously; omnipresence. Time=0, as defined by earthlings, is when the speed of light reference, slows to below C (non speed of light equivalent reference) allowing finite reference and space-time to integrate. This places limits of space and time, adding potential to the universe.
This analysis implies that the speed of light is the ground state of the universe, since this allow a state of maximum entropy, where space and time can act independently. To form the universe, we need to place limitations on this state of infinite entropy, by integrating space with time as space-time. This adds free energy to the universe; primordial atom. The subsequent evolution of the universe is the potential created at t=0, lowering back to the C ground state. This is reflected in the net universal conversion of matter (inertial) to energy (speed of light) via the forces of nature.
Thanks for all of that Wellwisher, there is a lot to think about in there. My take is that it goes well beyond the aims of this thread, which is about the simple beginnings, and of answering some basic philosophical questions about the universe.
You have gone on to some deep and theory specific conclusions which must have taken many years for you to get a grasp of, and which must reflect your own personal, perhaps metaphysical perspective. I'm glad you have found that place, and that you feel there are correlations between different individual perspectives that are worth sharing.
If there are no more participants on the question of the beginning, and if you are satisfied that I have responded to all arguments, then I have made my case for the 'Always existed' explanation for the presence of the universe.
Are there any objections to me addressing the philosophical characteristics of the There Infinities; space, time, and energy?
Do you accept, and let stand my comment that the 'Always existed' explanation automatically invokes the infinity of time?
However, I surmise that there are ramifications that a case for infinite time can have that tie in the other two infinities, space and energy; the three infinities at the heart of a cosmology of the universe that goes a separate way from the mainstream. Though I think it all qualifies for this General Philosophy sub-forum, maybe no one cares to go there here in plain sight, lol.
If a case can be made for a universe where time is infinite, then building on that, there is some logic that supports infinite space. If space is defined by the volume within any three dimensions of length, width, and height, for example, the space contained in a sphere, where the amount of space varies with the radius, or in the case of a polyhedron, where the length of the three dimensions define a volume of space.
Infinite space would then mean that from any point in space, the radius of the sphere would be of infinite length, or in the case of a polyhedron, the three dimensions would be of infinite length.
I suppose the following logic is full of holes, which I hope you feel free to point out:
In a universe of infinite volume, the sound logic seems to be that any dimension from any point in space would be infinite. On the other hand, in a finite universe, logic says that any dimension from any point in space would be of limited length. Therefore, the universe is of infinite volume unless there is sound logic or evidence that there is some limit to its dimensions.
If we were to always exist everything may have happened before. There are so many shapes and colors. Infinity is a countless number, but your memory can only save so much. If hedonistic faith willed itself, and love were a given the universe would function with a volume. Infinity would be rendered impossible, and un-desired.
From the perspective of cosmometry, every manifestation in the Universe is a stepping down of this infinite energy potential into very small and discrete energy events. Even the most powerful nuclear explosion is but the most minute fraction of the true energy potential of the spacetime field, and yet in our human experience it's an enormous and truly life-threatening power. Tapping into the greater energy potential is not something to pursue lightly.
"What is implied by this proposal is that what we call empty space contains an immense background of energy, and that matter as we know it is a small, "quantized" wavelike excitation on top of this background, rather like a tiny ripple on a vast sea." - David Bohm
TAKEN FROM: http://cosmometry.net/infinite-energy-potential
The whole universe can be but an excitation of this infinite energy field. Including our bodies.
I was hoping for some input addressing the logic in the thread so far, which I suggest philosophically supports the infinities of time and space, but in the mean time I have some comments on your post:
I understand the logic you are going for with that statement. Given infinite time, things can certainly repeat themselves, but the same logic may apply to suggest that given an infinite number of possible events, there is no need for them to ever repeat themselves.
Maybe, but to me it is hard to imagine that is the case.
The emerging field of cosmometry invokes the creation of the universe and the metaphysical. At least in this thread, that side of the Triangle of Explanations for the Existence of the Universe, is at best, related to the "God did it" or the "something from nothing" explanations. It is not associated with the "always existed" explanation for the existence of the universe, for which I have offered a logical case for discussion.
"Always existed" is unique to a causeless universe. If you believe energy is always conserved, there is no reason why the Big Bang can offer an equally plausible cause for the appearing universe's existence. But I cannot subscribe to an "always existed" universe because I have a very strong and powerful pull towards metaphysics and higher dimensions, which do not appear in your theory. I have interacted with my own spirit and have seen how it can directly affect the environment around me, the volume of the radio for example in a semi-drowsy state while drifting off to sleep. Or the experience of consciousness affecting time. Or even certain kinds of dreams. I have witnessed the divine and the diabolical and I cannot simply accept that we live in a universe that can be fully understood strictly by Physics. Perhaps theoretical Physics.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yet you subscribe to an "always existed" deity that created everything else?
So why not eliminate one unnecessary step, and consider the possibility that the universe may have always existed.
I never said that I exclude the possibility of an "always existed" universe. I just don't subscribe to it. It's not mainstream and does not vie with contending theories.
No it is speculative at this time, because the BB is not a theory of how the universe was created, its a theory of the evolution of spacetime from a hotter, denser state, at 10-43 seconds after the initial event.
I specifically subscribe to Loop Quantum Gravity's view of spacetime as an interwoven network of loops that evolve through time. Spacetime being within and without matter. I personally find that nothingness existing outside the universe and giving rise to something by a single Quantum fluctuation to be more satisfactory than infinite and eternal space and time. I think that is where q_w's idea departs from the mainstream.
Separate names with a comma.